[monochrome]

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but i personally do think that is the market Ricoh should target (not THE market but one of the markets).

Well - perhaps - but I wonder whether Ricoh would be willing to make enough K500-type cameras to properly exploit that segment.

[normhead]

After a lifetime of my own in mainstream commercial business I'll make up my own mind about corporate finance and marketing departments, thanks all the same. I post some information derived from Flickr - a publicly available and often used resource, even if the usual caveats apply. It may be far from perfect but it is not the near-useless pile of nothing some of you make out. just because something is not precise, and has many pitfalls too, does not mean it cannot make useful points about a general direction. It's just one data point. Falconeyes mentioned another. There are plenty more out there. Another one would be the general rise in unit price of the CIPA figures for DSLRs, for example. They all point in the same general direction. The post does not mention Pentax or a preference for any brand at all, in fact. This is apparently too much for the next poster who is, yes, boorish and then the general sarcasm kicks in. There are all the signs here of an unhealthy group of inward-looking people, so there's nothing to learn, is there? I'm bowing out.

Hey, all we're saying is, you could be wrong... if you can't live with that, you really shouldn't be part of any discussion. Have a nice evening.

There are all the signs here of an unhealthy group of inward-looking people, so there's nothing to learn, is there?

Is this a case of, when you run out of intelligent arguments.. call names?

[Rondec]

I don't know if you were being sarcastic or not, but i personally do think that is the market Ricoh should target (not THE market but one of the markets). With the discontinuation of the K500, there is a big gaping hole in that price range.
The K-S1 is simply too expensive to capture a big chunk of the entry level DSLR market.

My comment wasn't really about Ricoh, it was more about using Flickr statistics to judge how to target the market. I would bet within three months the K-S1 will be selling in the 550 range. Not sure if Pentax is interested in the sub-500 dollar range. Feels like margins are super-tight there.

[kooks]

I dont think Ricoh will need a FF to make money just with FF.. but they do need a FF if they want the brand to been taken seriously by new clients, specially the young ones that watch all over the net the "Pros" with their FF ( some MF but thats another story).. and what happens?? we dont have nothing there.. every young student goes to their photography class and what they see?? his/her teacher using a FF.. almost every person that do workshops uses FF, almost every photographer that takes pictures for their local newspaper uses a FF.. actually most of the people that make real money in the business uses FF (almost.. not all ).. so what happens? People like idols, specially young people, they like to follow persons with success in the industry, with knowladge... and to be honest not all of them ( perhaps just a really few) uses Pentax.. not because the cameras are bad because K3 is perhaps the best APS-C.. cameras are great, but there is a point where most of the pros will need something more than what APS-C can offer. and their next jump is the FF cameras, like it or not it is the truth.. i will looooove to have a Pentax camera that stays at the level of D810 or 5D Mk3 .. but sadly we dont have it.. and each day that goes by more and more people is switching from APS-C to full frame, and almost NONE is doing it from FF to APS-C... Ricoh need IDOLS in order to make the company grow.. if Pentax have pros shoothing with their products more young guys will go with Pentax and not with another brand just because their "idols" uses Pentax, doenst matter if they just buy a Kx or an old K20, but they use the same brand as the guys that they see doing workshows online, or their teachers at the classroom.

So, Will pentax make more money just because selling FF?? maybe.. maybe not.. will they get more clients that buys their other cameras? sure they will, and eventually a % of that people will buy their FF and with hard work and luck they will become an "idol" for some other new photographer...

---

Last edited by kooks; 10-30-2014 at 10:49 AM.

[Nicolas06]

Few remarks to previous posts:

- Flick for sure is good indicator. Like normhead say of what is more difficult to understand, but that interresting. They why speak of the 24% something of FF and discount that the first camera in flickr is iphone. Why only Nikon/Canon where selected then? Why not include all APSC DSLR vs all FF DSLR? We need to be clear on methodology and what we expect to find out of it.

- The Nikon calibration tool look like far too narrow. Likely used by only a few users, likely only a few enthousiasts/pro and maybe an emphasis of a problem that goes only with phase detect and maybe futher more only with Nikon phase detect or that is really importanto only on very high resolution shoots with shallow deph of field or for some lenses. That not representative of the market at all.

- The market sales are much more representative to me for who has what even through some people may buy lot of gear or change often. But as camera maker are concerned, they don't care the number of people, just the sales. So that's a good indicator. Better than the others. Last time we discussed we where around 10% of DSLR for FF or something. Likely that even less in % of users because the one that buy FF are more likely to buy/change it after some time than the basic user.

- For the way to make money, you don't need to sell to enthousiasts. That a market for sure, but not the only one. Simple example: The camera maker that make the most money now is apple, by far. It also the most represented camera in flicker, by far. Their gear might do more than just taking photo and may not be as good for taking photos, but this is irrelevant to other camera maker that sell far less gear and make far less money doing this. It typically show that as for now the basic phone segment that allow easy sharing, have a nice look and that also allow to take phone call is the best way to make money. Not FF, No MF or APSC. No, cell phones. This is not just for camera. It would apply to restaurant: I think Mac Donald make more than a 3 star restaurant, maybe because they sell to much more people. It would apply to drink maker. Coca Cola is the company that may make the most out of it because it sell to the whole world. An elite likor maker may sell only a few bottle per year and not make that much.

[jatrax]

almost every person that do workshops uses FF, almost every photographer that takes pictures for their local newspaper uses a FF.. actually most of the people that make real money in the business uses FF (almost.. not all )..

While I agree (I think) with your general point, things must be vastly different where you live. I have attended 4 or 5 weddings in the last 2 years. No FF cameras with any of the wedding togs. I have attended 3 classes/seminars in the last 2 years. Only one FF camera, and that was a D800 the instructor was "playing with", he used APS-C mostly though he said he was impressed with the D800. I have talked with many photographers that "make real money" with a camera and few, if any, that I remember use FF. Many in fact are moving to m4/3 because the gear is lighter and they can carry it easier.

I agree some people end up buying a camera because a 'pro' uses it. But I think that is more marketing from Canikon than what happens in the real world.

Edit: And I forgot, my niece shoots for the newspaper in her town. She's supposed to be a reporter but has to shoot her own images as well. And you guessed it, no FF camera for her.

[normhead]

I may be teaching a few classes next year for photographers new to Algonquin Park.. I'll collect some hard data for you.

[Rondec]

While I agree (I think) with your general point, things must be vastly different where you live. I have attended 4 or 5 weddings in the last 2 years. No FF cameras with any of the wedding togs. I have attended 3 classes/seminars in the last 2 years. Only one FF camera, and that was a D800 the instructor was "playing with", he used APS-C mostly though he said he was impressed with the D800. I have talked with many photographers that "make real money" with a camera and few, if any, that I remember use FF. Many in fact are moving to m4/3 because the gear is lighter and they can carry it easier.

I agree some people end up buying a camera because a 'pro' uses it. But I think that is more marketing from Canikon than what happens in the real world.

Edit: And I forgot, my niece shoots for the newspaper in her town. She's supposed to be a reporter but has to shoot her own images as well. And you guessed it, no FF camera for her.

It is interesting, because in my area, there is minimal infiltration of full frame. I see a couple of generations old APS-C cameras. There is one photographer that specializes in toddlers and new borns who shoots a D700, otherwise they uniformly use APS-C. The guy who shoots for the local paper uses a Fuji Bridge camera. I am convinced that most of the pressure to get full frame comes, not from customers, but from the need to keep up with other photographers.

I think the idea of the full frame conquest is vastly overstated on forums such as this one.

[ElJamoquio]

I used to see a different wedding photographer every week for about four years. Every week it was a full-frame.

[kooks]

While I agree (I think) with your general point, things must be vastly different where you live. I have attended 4 or 5 weddings in the last 2 years. No FF cameras with any of the wedding togs. I have attended 3 classes/seminars in the last 2 years. Only one FF camera, and that was a D800 the instructor was "playing with", he used APS-C mostly though he said he was impressed with the D800. I have talked with many photographers that "make real money" with a camera and few, if any, that I remember use FF. Many in fact are moving to m4/3 because the gear is lighter and they can carry it easier.

I agree some people end up buying a camera because a 'pro' uses it. But I think that is more marketing from Canikon than what happens in the real world.

Edit: And I forgot, my niece shoots for the newspaper in her town. She's supposed to be a reporter but has to shoot her own images as well. And you guessed it, no FF camera for her.

My point is that Pentax have some great awsome products, i love the K3 and the way that it performs with the lenses that i have... but there is a point when most of the "pros" needs something better than what APS-C can offer at this time.. so what they do? sadly they switch brands because we dont have a FF body yet.. will they come back in case that Pentax releases a FF?? mmmm good question... each day somebody switches from APC-S fo FF looking for better performance ( low light, resolution, etc) and that costumers COULD stay with the brand but there is nothing beyond the K3 ( wich i love ) and 645Z is way to expensive for most of us... In my case i love to take pictures in low light.. and i know that K3 can perform really nice.. but i also know that a FF will perform even better because of the ISO performance..

And thats the true.. its like if the brand is a marathon racer that runned 35KM at 1st place, performing great.. but after that it just start going down and down and down, and is where the other competitors start to stand up and mark difference... Pentax will finish the race in a good position.. but AT THIS TIME not in the top 3, I hope is that someday the brand will do it.

[monochrome]

Having just paid for part of one of those . . . . . ahem . . . . . celebrations (these days the groom pays half the total, which serves to double the budget), and quietly preparing to pay the FotB part of another, my observations are:

• the classic 'Professional' wedding photographers are conservative with their gear, shooting what works until it breaks (even using very old film zooms). Nikon, aps if it still works. Never Canon. (I've written about this recently)
• the really exclusive studio portrait artists (who will also do the wedding party sets on-site and arrange the engagement package and ceremony/reception shots with assistants) still use MF B&W film (Hassy, mostly). If you don't want 11x17 B&W prints you are SOL as far as they are concerned. Don't even try to hire them. They're all borderline elderly now.
• the hipper, younger, photographers popular with the mass-affluent set use the latest and greatest gear. It's part of the marketing. Usually Canon. If they could make the letters on the flash snoot bigger they would.

[normhead]

It is interesting, because in my area, there is minimal infiltration of full frame. I see a couple of generations old APS-C cameras. There is one photographer that specializes in toddlers and new borns who shoots a D700, otherwise they uniformly use APS-C. The guy who shoots for the local paper uses a Fuji Bridge camera. I am convinced that most of the pressure to get full frame comes, not from customers, but from the need to keep up with other photographers.

I think the idea of the full frame conquest is vastly overstated on forums such as this one.

But that's just us.....
Here's the thing, I totally believe in colour contrast, not tonal contrast, subject isolation through colour, extra etc..etc. but, imagine, you're a wedding photographer, before the wedding, the lounge where everyone gathers has the most ghastly wall paper you've ever seen and you have no choice you have to shoot there. And it's very long but only 12 feet wide, so backing up and shooting a longer lens isn't going to work. You have to admit, in a circumstance like that, you want to be able to pull out that 1.4 or 1.8 lens to achieve an out of focus background. One of the reasons I say I don't need a full frame is because I don't do weddings.

But, say you are my rich Uncle Harry and he wants me to shoot his daughters wedding, or he's going to cut me out of his will. I'm going to say, "rich Uncle Harry, you're going to have to buy me an FF and some fast glass. 35 mm 50mm 85mm all 1.4, and a 70 -210 ƒ2.8 and a Nikon D7500 or D3s." It's going to be part of what it costs him. For what I do, I don't need it. But if someone wants me to do something else, then I might need all kinds of things I don't currently own. I handle this by looking whoever wants me to shoot their wedding straight in the eye, and saying "no." It's not a ploy. It's a recognition that having the right equipment is part of doing the job, and I'm not interested in investing in the right equipment for that job.

If you're going to do something for money, you've got to equip yourself to do it right.

The only way this is the wrong attitude is if I let someone I care about talk me into doing their wedding as a freebee. Now I'm in trouble.

That being said, I can think of very few other circumstances where I can't get along with or benefit from APS-c. And that's, the position of most "enthusiast" shooters, and most Pentax users.

My advice would be, be happy, but never forget the limitations of your gear...

So I agree with you totally, the need for FF is vastly overstated, and will continue to agree with you until that moment in time when I don't.

Hopefully that moment will never come. But I really don't want to get written out of rich Uncle Harry's will.

[monochrome]

So I agree with you totally, the need for FF is vastly overstated, and will continue to agree with you until that moment in time when I don't.

Truer words were never spoken - and they're true of most opinions.

[aleonx3]

..


So I agree with you totally, the need for FF is vastly overstated, and will continue to agree with you until that moment in time when I don't.

There has been much debate over whether wedding photogs need to use FF to get the results they want. To many beginners, FF is a requirement for being in wedding photography so much that even clients started to think that if the photog is using FF cameras, he/she must be good. Unfortunately, that is not always the case, I have been to weddings when the hired photographer uses FF but was having difficulties with the flash. The ability to use external flash properly when the lighting is not optimal is more important than have a FF camera for high iso performance IMHO.

[kooks]

The ability to use external flash properly when the lighting is not optimal is more important than have a FF camera for high iso performance IMHO.

Totally agree with you, its more important to know how to work with the tools that everyone have than to have a "fancy" FF camera. But also let's not forget that Pentax flash system isnt the greatest :/ .. just a few months ago with the introduction of the Cactus V6 system we were able to control flashes power/zoom from the camera to any location using radio frequencies but we are still behind that race...

I do agree that Pentax APS-C can perform really good for enthusiast and even advance users... but it'll also be nice to have that option to keep using this brand in the few conditions where APS-C is not that great this days ...