[monochrome]

What is the technical difference between the APS-C and the FF body.. besides the obvious sensor size??

What is the difference in price between a FF sensor and an APSc sensor?

[Winder]

What is the technical difference between the APS-C and the FF body.. besides the obvious sensor size?? is that so expensive to put a FF sensor in a camera body? .. is that so expensive for manufactures to put a FF sensor in a body like the K3?? .. what we are seeing now is a more realistic price for the FF cameras.. Prices were just way to high for products that doesnt really need to be that expensive. My guess is that in the future as many said, we will see more often $1500 and even less FF cameras.. IMHO there is no reason to pay prices at $3000 for machines that are "almost" identical to high end APS-C cameras. The profit for the manufactures will be there, but in volume sales.

For SR you need a bigger system to handle the heavier sensor. In the Sony A7m2 the IBIS added 10mm to the thickness of the body. Smaller sensors make it a lot easier for IBIS to work. Olympus has a really good IBIS system, but the sensor is 1/4 the size of the FF sensor. You need a bigger mirror, prism, & OVF. That is one of the advantages of a mirrorless. You don't need the big mirror/box/prism/OVF.

The actual sensor costs have come way, way down.

[aleonx3]

But the Pentax user base does NOT buy $2,000 camera bodies. Never has. never will. The glass is simply not there.

FF for K-mount will only come when FF sensors drop even more. It is still a conundrum for Pentax because the DSLR market shares staled and may even be declining.

I think Ricoh/Pentax is playing a waiting game... sometimes a little patience goes a long way - when they can get good FF sensor at the price they want to pay.

[Jyrkira]

Doesn't anyone else think Pentax is silly to sell expensive lenses but not a camera that can use the whole functionality they offer ?

[Uluru]

I think Ricoh/Pentax is playing a waiting game... sometimes a little patience goes a long way - when they can get good FF sensor at the price they want to pay.

The price they are paying is that they are losing the healthy market of photo enthusiasts, as the FF market is now catering for them. Pentax offers nothing that can make enthusiasts happy.

Nobody asks Ricoh to deliver a D4 alternative, but rather something that competes with D750.
Pentax engineers can do that with their eyes closed, as D750 is no engineering miracle. FF is simply more versatile platform and allows more room for play. And again, nobody asks Ricoh to deliver a new mount; K mount is already FF compatible. Everyone understands that user requests are not impossible, but quite plausible.

Ricoh is playing a very dangerous game, as they cater more for hipsters that true enthusiasts. Hipsters will not buy expensive lenses, but enthusiasts will. Hipsters are also not loyal users nor forward thinking. Having only one enthusiast camera in the lineup, the K-3 which is tied to crop format, Pentax under Ricoh is now bleeding most important users as sales of low level DSLRs decline rapidly. And apart from competent K-3, it has no other meat that keeps users clinging to the brand. All that while Canon and Nikon fortify themselves as the future market for enthusiasts, now offering plethora of quality FF cameras.

Pentax is now weakest in the area where it should be the strongest.



It is a grandpa in the tutu — a brand that stands for traditional quality in only ONE product in its K-mount offer! Everything else is a joke. I call that incompetent management of the brand. A plastic toy like K-S1 pushed artificially in the medium level thanks to insane price boost but no features, is a sure sign Ricoh's marketing strategies are beyond contempt.

That brand must have two high level, no-nonsense APS-C machines and one good FF at least. Because that is the new shopping ground for the DSLR market; everything below is eaten up by small mirror-less systems.

[gaddigad]

That brand must have two high level, no-nonsense APS-C machines and one good FF at least. Because that is the new shopping ground for the DSLR market; everything below is eaten up by small mirror-less systems.

By the time they (Pentax) have finished making all the lenses and stuff, mirrorless could be eating the whole ground. Don't forget Sony had tried that route before with the A900 (or somesuch, not a bad model for that time by any means).

[clackers]

That brand must have two high level, no-nonsense APS-C machines and one good FF at least. Because that is the new shopping ground for the DSLR market; everything below is eaten up by small mirror-less systems.

What - just copy Canon and Nikon who are having DSLR crises?

Expand into a contracting market, as Winder pointed out?

In ecology, niches are places of survival.

[Kunzite]

By the time they (Pentax) have finished making all the lenses and stuff, mirrorless could be eating the whole ground. Don't forget Sony had tried that route before with the A900 (or somesuch, not a bad model for that time by any means).

Pentax proved over and over again they can compete in the DSLR market, despite adverse condition (e.g. a hostile takeover and what followed). What they couldn't do was to be a top player, but nobody can make it to the top when your owner knows nothing but cost cuttings.
OTOH, Sony failed despite having control over themselves, part of which might be the arrogance to think they can simply throw products on the market. The A900 might be a good warning for Pentax - what could happen if your product line is not compelling enough - but not a mistake Pentax would be doomed to repeat.
Indeed, the A900 is a camera made by very competent engineers (Minolta's), with their eyes closed (hello, Uluru). Pentax is trying to do better than that, which explains the delay. Pentax can do better than that.

Yes, I think Ricoh Imaging's Pentax can pull it off. I think they have to - the DSLR market might decline, but it's still several times as large as the overcrowded MILC one. By doing so in the near future, they would grow, strengthen their business; which in turn will open new possibilities. They can't do much in their current state, this is what they'll have to work on first - and they are working on it.
That beats by far the "throw everything away and make me a cheaper and better Sony/Olympus/Samsung/whatever" strategy

[Aristophanes]

Refurbished D610 for $1,300 Used Nikon D610 DSLR Camera (Body Only) 1540B B&H Photo Video

By this time next year we will have $1,000 FF bodies.

Likely. But even Pentax acknowledges that the smartphone issue and connectivity have driven price points down, so there are fewer people willing to invest in a system. The "good enough" syndrome has hit this market, so even if the $2,600 body is now $1,800, and FF drops to $1,300, the new mid-range is now sub-$1,000.

Also—and I keep saying this—the body is not the problem. It's the lenses. Can Pentax ramp up a 4th product line with the Q, 6455, APS-C (which will still dominate sales), and FF?

Note how both Nikon and Canon have recently put more resources into APS-C. Why? Because they see the same issue. They cannot assume that people will buy up to FF when a "good enough" APS-C option is still considerably cheaper. Why would a consumer buy an FF at $1,500/body when you could get a K-3 at $900?

Not to mention the size factor for FF prism optics. The reason why the Sony A7 is small is because of the EVF. That is the other conundrum. It's also one reason why it still sells less than the D750 by a wide, wide margin.

---------- Post added 01-01-15 at 11:28 AM ----------

That brand must have two high level, no-nonsense APS-C machines and one good FF at least. Because that is the new shopping ground for the DSLR market; everything below is eaten up by small mirror-less systems.

Not really. DSLRs in North America still outsell mirrorless about 5:1. This is a VERY conservative market. I still far more DSLRs than mirrorless systems, especially amongst the middle class family crowd. When they want a "real" camera, they look for a DSLR with a OVF I find. I went to 3 pre-Xmas events loaded with families and I saw dozens of DSLRs and hardly any mirrorless.

I think the main reasons why DSLR sales stalled are over-saturation and lack of connectivity to the emerging mobile OS dominance. It has much less to do with mirrorless and lack of FF.

---------- Post added 01-01-15 at 11:36 AM ----------

What is the difference in price between a FF sensor and an APSc sensor?

Current estimates put APS-C at ~$40 per while FF is about 6x that including the added costs for supporting circuitry as well, like buffers, etc.

Prisms and mirrors and dampers all have to be larger as well, but those are not huge differences. It all adds up though, to a price point differential. Also, Canikon have no real impetus to engage in a FF price war. Only Sony does, but they have to few lenses to sway the big money stalwarts, so their approach is more vampire in that they suck off $$$ as a second system. Go to FredMiranada and see how many big Canikon shooters dabble with Sony gear (and more often than not stick with he big lens systems of Canikon).

FF is utterly dominated by the glass offered by Canikon alongside flagships like the D750. Note: optics first, bodies second.

[Rondec]

Likely. But even Pentax acknowledges that the smartphone issue and connectivity have driven price points down, so there are fewer people willing to invest in a system. The "good enough" syndrome has hit this market, so even if the $2,600 body is now $1,800, and FF drops to $1,300, the new mid-range is now sub-$1,000.

Also—and I keep saying this—the body is not the problem. It's the lenses. Can Pentax ramp up a 4th product line with the Q, 6455, APS-C (which will still dominate sales), and FF?

Note how both Nikon and Canon have recently put more resources into APS-C. Why? Because they see the same issue. They cannot assume that people will buy up to FF when a "good enough" APS-C option is still considerably cheaper. Why would a consumer buy an FF at $1,500/body when you could get a K-3 at $900?

Not to mention the size factor for FF prism optics. The reason why the Sony A7 is small is because of the EVF. That is the other conundrum. It's also one reason why it still sells less than the D750 by a wide, wide margin.

---------- Post added 01-01-15 at 11:28 AM ----------



Not really. DSLRs in North America still outsell mirrorless about 5:1. This is a VERY conservative market. I still far more DSLRs than mirrorless systems, especially amongst the middle class family crowd. When they want a "real" camera, they look for a DSLR with a OVF I find. I went to 3 pre-Xmas events loaded with families and I saw dozens of DSLRs and hardly any mirrorless.

I think the main reasons why DSLR sales stalled are over-saturation and lack of connectivity to the emerging mobile OS dominance. It has much less to do with mirrorless and lack of FF.

---------- Post added 01-01-15 at 11:36 AM ----------



Current estimates put APS-C at ~$40 per while FF is about 6x that including the added costs for supporting circuitry as well, like buffers, etc.

Prisms and mirrors and dampers all have to be larger as well, but those are not huge differences. It all adds up though, to a price point differential. Also, Canikon have no real impetus to engage in a FF price war. Only Sony does, but they have to few lenses to sway the big money stalwarts, so their approach is more vampire in that they suck off $$$ as a second system. Go to FredMiranada and see how many big Canikon shooters dabble with Sony gear (and more often than not stick with he big lens systems of Canikon).

FF is utterly dominated by the glass offered by Canikon alongside flagships like the D750. Note: optics first, bodies second.

The interesting thing to me is how Pentax has been able to undercut Nikon's prices in the APS-C market, I am assuming with significantly less volume. Maybe they have just decided to take a loss on every body in order to sell a few lenses, but I doubt it. The brand has to be expanding with such aggressive pricing.

As to whether or not full frame SLR is in the cards, who knows? That is the calculation going on right now. At the same time, I think Pentax could have adequate lenses to launch such a product pretty quickly. Basically, they would need a 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 plus a couple of cheaper zooms in the f2.5 to f5.6 range. I doesn't feel like that would be that hard to do and if necessary, they could license a lens from Tamron in order to make it happen. Further primes could be filled in as time goes by.

I am still really unclear as to how soon a future where mirrorless cameras dominate is. If it means that pros basically pitch all of their current SLR lenses or, use them with big adapters, then I doubt that it will happen at the top end, at least not for awhile. Still, it does seem like things are moving that direction.

[monochrome]

The interesting thing to me is how Pentax has been able to undercut Nikon's prices in the APS-C market, I am assuming with significantly less volume. Maybe they have just decided to take a loss on every body in order to sell a few lenses, but I doubt it. The brand has to be expanding with such aggressive pricing.

Pentax has ZERO support infrastructure, ZERO advertising / endorsement expense (in the West) and very little marketing expense built into its costs.

[Docrwm]

Pentax has ZERO support infrastructure, ZERO advertising / endorsement expense (in the West) and very little marketing expense built into its costs.

Yes, paying film stars to be seen with your cameras does cost a bit.

[derekkite]

Pentax has ZERO support infrastructure, ZERO advertising / endorsement expense (in the West) and very little marketing expense built into its costs.

Plus they don't have unprofitable place holders.

[gaddigad]

That beats by far the "throw everything away and make me a cheaper and better Sony/Olympus/Samsung/whatever" strategy

What, "throw everything away and make me a cheaper and better Canon/Nikon" is that better? That's exactly what Sony tried with the A900/A850, btw. On the other hand, there's still just one mirrorless FF system on the market right now, and Pentax could be the second (They could have been there even before Sony if they wanted, if even just to stick their pole and make a bold statement).

[thibs]

Yes, paying film stars to be seen with your cameras does cost a bit.

Not only film stars, in a lot of Series/TV shows too.
Mostly Nikon, sometimes Canon.