[kooks]

I think Pentax interest in FF is due to the fact that it is a low volume, potential high profit segment.

I dont really think this is the line of thinking... I believe that the FF is due because the leak of clients leaving the brand in order to have a brand that can give them a "normal" DSLR path up to FF gear. I believe that is also due because many NEW costumers are not picking Pentax at the stores because the salesmans tells them that this is not a Pro camera brand ( even if you are not a pro, just the sound of the word in anyones ear could make them have a choise ).. and i also believe that they are having this FF because many current costumers are demanding this FOR YEARS, and not having one is bad publicity.

Sounds to me that there are 3 kind of people here.. the ones that really want a cheap FF ( $1500 or so ).. the ones that want something that can compete with the top brand following what Pentax have being doing in matter of prices ( prices that is between $2000 and $2500 ).. and finally the ones that hope ( dont get why ) for pentax to release a really expensive FF that could cost $3000 or more.

As i said.. my guess goes to the 2nd group. something between $2300 and $2500... it can be use by pros, it is more expensive than what pentaxians are used to, it can have really nice features.. and most of all.. is affortable in most part... I just can not see a K50, k5 or even K3's user buying a $3000+ camera from the stores.. ( this is when my analogy of the Corolla and Mercedes came up, i can not see a Corolla user going to a Mercedes dealer and getting a brand new MB ) .. perhaps just a few will.. but.. will that be enough??

But then again.. who knows.. at this point nobody knows anything about the price.. or features... well perhaps some do, but the ones that do keep the info for themselfs.

---

Last edited by kooks; 07-08-2015 at 10:06 AM.

[Zygonyx]

+1 with Pal for his last 5 posts.

[Rondec]

Which is a shame, because APS-C sensors have finally hit their stride, and are matching the high ISO performance of yesteryear's full-frame bodies, while beating them in every other respect from sheer resolution to dynamic range.

I've long argued that full-frame is an unnecessary luxury for 50-75% of the folks who buy it, and I'd now upgrade that number to 75-90%.

The reason that full-frame is so widely seen as the go-to choice of serious hobbyists and working pros has as much to do with envy, self-confidence, and status symbols as it does with any measurable difference in the final results.

Having said that, I do like to push the envelope. As far as it will go. I do use full-frame gear to its full capability quite often. But that's because what I do is rather demanding. (shooting weddings in pitch-black churches, at wide open apertures and extremely high ISOs, or shooting astro-landscapes at the same camera settings lol...)

I'll probably buy a full-frame Pentax camera. However it would not replace a crop-sensor body in my bag as a highly useful, versatile tool. It would only compliment the system. In fact having used tons and tons of different Nikon and Canon gear over the years, I'm quite fed up with lugging around massive full-frame zooms. Crop-sensor zooms have a massive advantage in size, weight, and price, as that new Sigma 24-35 f/2 proves when compared against its "puny" little sibling, the 18-35 1.8 APS-C lens. If I could, I'd only ever use primes on full-frame, and zooms on crop. But I digress.

=Matt=

---------- Post added 07-08-15 at 09:26 AM ----------



I agree that a D750 and D810 (and 5D mk3, and 5Ds) "killer" would be a good move. It would be doable in one camera, if it had a decent frame rate and good image quality, at either 36 or 42 MP.

But what precedent is there for this camera to cost over $3K? This is what I posted before, but nobody seemed to follow my logic... So I'll also share this bit of info, for those who are fully Pentaxian, and don't pay much attention to the outside world. (I'm a Nikon user in the process of selling gear to switch to Pentax)

Nikons are being fire-saled left and right these days as "Grey". You can get a new D810 for about $2200; you can get a D750 for about $1500. Sure, this doesn't come with a warranty and Nikon USA would refuse to touch it, but even if you bought insurance and/or got it serviced at an authorized third-party, you'd still come out ahead by hundreds and hundreds of dollars.

My point is this: clearly, Nikon is charging a pretty penny when they MSRP a D810 at $3300 or whatever. So, based on how affordable the K-3 II is compared to it's direct Canon/Nikon competition, I'd wager that a full-frame Pentax wouldn't cost more than $1000-$1500 more than a K-3 II. There is no reason for us to believe such a camera couldn't include every feature of the mid-range Canon/Nikon bodies, and do it for as much as $1000 less.

We shall see, of course.
=Matt=

I don't really think we know where the price is going to be on Pentax full frame. My guess would be 2800-ish, with discounts available down the road.

As to the whole APS-C thing. The problem over time has been that companies have hesitated to put top end components in their APS-C cameras for fear that they will steal sales from full frame. There are plenty of folks who don't need a full frame sensor, but want a high end auto focus system and frame rate. If they can get such a camera for 1500 dollars as compared to paying 2500 dollars for a similarly specified full frame, that is exactly what they will do.

It is just that the major brands are afraid to release such a camera for fear of killing their investment in full frame.

[IchabodCrane]

I don't really think we know where the price is going to be on Pentax full frame. My guess would be 2800-ish, with discounts available down the road.

As to the whole APS-C thing. The problem over time has been that companies have hesitated to put top end components in their APS-C cameras for fear that they will steal sales from full frame. There are plenty of folks who don't need a full frame sensor, but want a high end auto focus system and frame rate. If they can get such a camera for 1500 dollars as compared to paying 2500 dollars for a similarly specified full frame, that is exactly what they will do.

It is just that the major brands are afraid to release such a camera for fear of killing their investment in full frame.

If I look at it from the manufacturer's end, I'm asking myself how I get paid for all of the effort, expertise, and cost in developing some high end components like AF systems. If Nikon wanted the same payback for their sophisticated AF tracking on an APS-C camera as they get on FF, they might have to charge $2000 for the camera. Maybe they figure no one will buy it and that is that the reason there is no D400?

Stated in a different way, most of those who are willing to pay for such features want a FF sensor, too.

[jatrax]

and finally the ones that hope ( dont get why ) for pentax to release a really expensive FF that could cost $3000 or more.

I guess that is aimed at me Kooks, but I don't HOPE for that price. I am just trying to be realistic. If it comes out cheaper, I will be just as happy as you. I'm just not setting myself up for disappointment when it releases at a price I cannot afford. And unlike some I am not going to whine and moan that Ricoh should make a cheap camera just for me.

I just can not see a K50, k5 or even K3's user buying a $3000+ camera from the stores.

I don't either and that is what I keep saying and you keep ignoring. Why do you insist this FF camera is for current Pentax users? Everyone keeps saying "Pentax users are cheap", "want a bargain" and so on. Yet all indications are the new lenses and FF are not targeted at anyone looking for a bargain. So I am postulating that this camera is NOT intended for the current "cheap" Pentax user base but for a completely new user base. If anyone from the current user base wants to buy I am sure they will be delighted but I think they are aiming elsewhere.

And as someone else noted above, based on the 150-450 price I expected slow sells yet it seems there are more people reporting on it than the 16-85 for example. So maybe the Pentax user base is willing to buy more $3,000 cameras than you think.

[kooks]

I don't either and that is what I keep saying and you keep ignoring.

Is not that im ignoring.. the thing is that i can not see where is the market here. can you show it to me?? cuz if Ricoh/Pentax will ignore all their user base.. so they will need to create a all new FF base.. and where is it if Canon, Nikon and Sony already have it all?? I can not see people switching brands just because, and you are saying the current Pentax users are cheap.. so .. where is the market?? who will buy this camera?? there should be a really good reason to buyit.. and at this point i can not see it.. Nikon,Canon and Sony have GREAT cameras out there.. who ever wants a good FF can already buy it..so.. why should this people wait for Ricoh to come and gamble with this FF?? perhaps im missing something in this equiation.. but.. to bet in a unknown new user base thats just WAY to risky for a brand like Pentax... but who knows.. all this are just personal opinions.

[Pål Jensen]

There's nothing suggesting that the user base won't spend $3000. Their user base is currently APS users and in order for the vast majority of them to spend money on an FF body it needs to deliver something more than the K-3.

[IchabodCrane]

Is not that im ignoring.. the thing is that i can not see where is the market here. can you show it to me?? cuz if Ricoh/Pentax will ignore all their user base.. so they will need to create a all new FF base.. and where is it if Canon, Nikon and Sony already have it all?? I can not see people switching brands just because, and you are saying the current Pentax users are cheap.. so .. where is the market?? who will buy this camera?? there should be a really good reason to buyit.. and at this point i can not see it.. Nikon,Canon and Sony have GREAT cameras out there.. who ever wants a good FF can already buy it..so.. why should this people wait for Ricoh to come and gamble with this FF?? perhaps im missing something in this equiation.. but.. to bet in a unknown new user base thats just WAY to risky for a brand like Pentax... but who knows.. all this are just personal opinions.

That's what I'm wondering, too. If Ricoh releases a camera in the upper half of the FF price spectrum with the expectation of drawing new users to the Pentax brand, they'll ideally have to offer something that people can't get elsewhere. What would that be? Two things come to mind: on-sensor PDAF (coupled with a standard OVF via translucent mirror?) or the combination of IBIS with non-butchered 14-bit RAW files. The first would allow for elimination of meticulous AF calibration and the second is something Sony inexplicably fumbled with the A7R II. Plus, with Sony, bad lens selection.

---------- Post added 07-08-15 at 04:48 PM ----------

There's nothing suggesting that the user base won't spend $3000. Their user base is currently APS users and in order for the vast majority of them to spend money on an FF body it needs to deliver something more than the K-3.

I agree but what can Ricoh deliver that's better than what's in the K-3? The sensor might account for a several hundred dollar premium. The next $1000 on top of that?

[jatrax]

the thing is that i can not see where is the market here. can you show it to me?? cuz if Ricoh/Pentax will ignore all their user base.. so they will need to create a all new FF base.. and where is it if Canon, Nikon and Sony already have it all?? I can not see people switching brands just because, and you are saying the current Pentax users are cheap.. so .. where is the market?? who will buy this camera?? there should be a really good reason to buyit.. and at this point i can not see it.

No idea. And maybe that is why Ricoh waited so long. They don't see it either. Or didn't see it. Maybe they do now. And if it is aimed at a new market then why would we see it? Maybe developing countries? Maybe China? India? Who knows.

There's nothing suggesting that the user base won't spend $3000. Their user base is currently APS users and in order for the vast majority of them to spend money on an FF body it needs to deliver something more than the K-3.

Truth. I have (had) the money saved but I'm not sure what a FF would deliver (to me) that the k-3II does not do. And I really do not see a way for a FF that delivers remarkable (something) to be anything less than $3,000. Maybe I'm wrong. I have said elsewhere I'm a buyer at $2,000 probably at $2,500 but not higher. But that does not mean there are not enough people, in this user base or some other, that are totally fine with a $3,000 body. They seem to have no problem with the 150-450.

I think a camera @ $2,299 would sell much much better. I just don't see this camera being released at that price given the parameters that have been stated.

[kooks]

If i were RICOH.. hahaha.. this is what i will do.... ( once again.. maybe im wrong who knows.. ) .. I will make a FF camera with nice features, fully usable for the photography pro market ( lets leave 4K video and all that out ), at a price range between $2200 and $2500 .. I will try to release a camera that for the price competes a lot with the high end of the other brands.. same as K3ii competes with D72000 or 7Dmk2s.. but, with a price that they are not offering.. What will i try to bring with this:

1st: something between $2000 and $2500 is a reasonable good FF camera.. not that cheap.. not that expensive
2nd: current pentax users, specially the high end APS-C users will look at this camera as their next step, and at a price that with some savings they could handle
3rd: because the features are better than the ones that the other brand can offer for the same price.. MAYBE other highend users from other brands will look at this camera as their "saviour" to come into the FF world and not spending $3000 or more in a body
4th: marketing.. a camera with nice spects and great price is always atrractive.. is atractive to the public.. and attractive to the reviewers
5th: i will try to avold the head to head comparison with Nikon and Canon.. Why? because if the camera comes at a price that is the same as Canikons people will compare EVERYTHING.. and when i say everything it means EVERYTHING.. they wont leave a single thing out.. on the other hand, with a little cheaper camera, people will say.. ok.. dont have this.. but i have this.. or i save $$.. something that with a $3000+ camera i dont think can be possible.
6th: try to grow my market share.. price always play a big roll here.
7th: within the next year.. or so.. i will deliver a 2nd body with more features.. Perhaps like what the A7rii is. but not until i have potential buyers for this camera within my market.

8th.. im talking to much shit.. haha..

[Pål Jensen]

I don't think it makes much difference whether it cost $2500 or $2999.
What I take for granted is that its worth what it costs compared to the competition.

[boriscleto]

This line of thinking Is so nihilistic. So, there's no point in Ricoh trying to be best, because the competition might introduce something better (but if I remember rightly, the K-5 remained at the top of its category for years).

Because everything was frozen for about 2 years. Flooding in Thailand, tsunami in Japan etc...

[mee]

I don't think it makes much difference whether it cost $2500 or $2999.
What I take for granted is that its worth what it costs compared to the competition.

400 dollars can differentiate two tiers though.. and thus different buyers.. and number of buyers..

However, This isn't the first camera Ricoh/Pentax has sold so they know how to price appropriately... no worries about that.

[Quicksand]

However, This isn't the first camera Ricoh/Pentax has sold so they know how to price appropriately... no worries about that.

Reminder: Both the K-S1 and the K-01 were $749 at release.

[Rondec]

Reminder: Both the K-S1 and the K-01 were $749 at release.

I think K-01 was mostly Hoya's baby. But I also remember Ricoh being pretty aggressive at lowering prices when it turned out they couldn't get rid of the K-01 units.