[thibs]

Sure fine... So where should the alienated userbase, that preferred Pentax for its more then excellent affordability, turn to now? Which brand will eagurly welcome them with open arms? Ricoh is playing a dangerous gamble imho. Betting everything on the new expensive gear being a major success, alienating much of the existing userbase.

In which would you (or I or anybody else currently using APS) be alienated 'cos Ricoh intros a high end FF ?
I fear I don't get it.

---------- Post added 08-07-15 at 15:24 ----------

The days when "FF" meant "high-end" are over.

True but you can reverse it and say that APS is nowhere a place you want to be to make good profit.
FF is better, and high end FF even better.

If Ricoh comes with a D610, the whole internet including DPR will just 'meh'. Which would be a waste of resource.
A excellent thing for us, here short term but a waste of resource nonetheless.

Ricoh needs to draw attention and that's what they try to do. An affordable FF will come later, there's price point to do so very easily, seeing the K3-II current price.
US$2500 high end FF and US$1800 'normal' FF intro prices look absolutely reasonable.

[Glorfindelrb]

I can imagine kenspro eating his fingers now seeing a machine he helped to start and was not able to stop.
He should maybe go write that the FF will cost about 2500€ on an obscure Chinese forum.

[Rondec]

The days when "FF" meant "high-end" are over.

There is no space for expensive APS-C bodies in the market anymore. FF is the new normal. In other words, an FF model is the only way to stay in business long-term.

Surely Ricoh can try to target high-end at the same time but I think the Pentax brand is less than ideally positioned for this right now.

Is that really true?

It seems like there is space for a 7D Mk II and probably a D400 if Nikon would ever choose to make it.

The problem isn't that there isn't a place for a 1500 dollar APS-C camera, but that most brands are fixated on trying to get every photographer into a full frame body (and therefor full frame glass) that they can.

[Class A]

If Ricoh comes with a D610, the whole internet including DPR will just 'meh'.

FWIW, I'm not suggesting for a second that the Pentax FF should be a crippled camera for a bargain price.

It should be the usual very attractively featured package with a few weaknesses that won't affect too many though for a very fair price.

BTW, I do not condone the current K-50 bargain table pricing. These dramatic price drops over the history of a model are damaging to the brand, AFAIC. I'd prefer if there were less of an introduction premium, compensated by a much more stable price over the lifetime of the product.

[mecrox]

The days when "FF" meant "high-end" are over.

There is no space for expensive APS-C bodies in the market anymore. FF is the new normal. In other words, an FF model is the only way to stay in business long-term.

Surely Ricoh can try to target high-end at the same time but I think the Pentax brand is less than ideally positioned for this right now.

Yes, a bullseye there. It's find higher margin areas or succumb since the mass-market sell-by-volume stuff is exactly what Ricoh can't do but Canonikon can (while stockholders' funds last, hoho). Still, plenty of possibilities such as 36/42 mpx FF plus IBIS system movement plus astro = better option than D810A, maybe ditto with IBIS shiftng plus pixelshift plus TS lens for architecture and interior shots. Either idea could be offered for a lot of $$$ and is just what one might expect from the marque that produces the 645z.

[mee]

DPR is generally not so receptive of anything OVF and Pentax... so I'd suggest not weighing your opinion on the camera off of DPR's thoughts on it. They are Mirrorless fans.. huge mirrorless fans.

Even after prodding them to include Pentax bodies in their comparisons (DR, IQ, etc), and their responses that they would be, they still are not.. its just lip service. I really think their funding gauges their reviews these days.. much different than 5 or 6 years ago it seems.. which is ironic, to me, because their review of the K-x from eons ago was one of the reasons I decided to pick Pentax over Nikon as a novice. haha.

That is also a bit scary.. I wonder how many other novices looking for their first 'big' camera go to sites such as DPR, see it discounted in words, then decide it must not be that good and miss out.

[Clavius]

In which would you (or I or anybody else currently using APS) be alienated 'cos Ricoh intros a high end FF ?
I fear I don't get it.

Because that existing Pentax user was waiting for a K-mount FF DSLR that was in-line with the excellent affordability of the Pentax APS-C DSLR line? The fact that Pentax APS-C and the 645 are both very affordable compared to the other brands, it was not a bold assumption. Twist it around: If those users could have afforded to abandon K-mount and get their FF platform elsewhere, then they would have already done so. Don't underestimate how big this change of direction really is. It disqualifies a certain portion of the userbase from upgrading. Maybe equally or even moreso then suddenly changing a mount system. And maybe that's a move still to come as well... I mean, if they change minds/directions so easily, then you never know...

[bibz]

I hope pentax make the very best camera they can. I think thats what its about. Pentax cameras are great to use. If you have the features glass and performance, the layout and ergonomics will lead to a nice market. If and when they can undercut everyone in the market like the 645z does, I'm sure they will! Pro's don't want a price point impacting on their work. They want what works. I don't really care about that style of photography, so I'll wait until it trickles down. Unless my circumstances change and it has a 6x7 look to it.

[IchabodCrane]

Is that really true?

It seems like there is space for a 7D Mk II and probably a D400 if Nikon would ever choose to make it.

The problem isn't that there isn't a place for a 1500 dollar APS-C camera, but that most brands are fixated on trying to get every photographer into a full frame body (and therefor full frame glass) that they can.

Those aren't necessarily exclusive positions. If Nikon and now Sony have been successful on the FF question then they may have destroyed the perception or even need for a $1500 APS-C body. As for Canon, would the 7D Mk II exist if it wasn't being pitched as a killer video camera that also takes great stills?

Regardless, if those three camera makers control enough of the mind-share among consumers then Ricoh is best to go along with them instead of swim against a strong current. Despite the goals Ricoh stated a couple or more years ago that they intend to be a major or dominant supplier of ILCs, they aren't. A guerrilla producer/marketer often has one great strategy to win... find a weakness in their competitor's strength and exploit it. Canon and Nikon's strengths are their lens collections (IMHO). Their weakness is only some are optically stabilized.

If I was designing Ricoh's next camera, it might look like this:
FF
IBIS
Variable-transmission mirror (more practical in FF due to higher light levels?)
On-sensor PDAF
Unadulterated 14-bit RAW files

No one builds a camera like this. Sony could come close (if one can accept an EVF) if they changed their file format. However, Pentax trumps Sony in lens availability by a very wide margin.

[Nicolas06]

What he meant was that you can get "value for money" at any price point, which is true in principle but there is a problem with very high price points because then you have to beat the best in terms of performance, system strength, and service.

I don't see Pentax being ready for such prime time, hence my concerns about a "pro-level priced" model.

That's why the camera maker that make the most money by far is apple with its iphone serie I guess. I guess that's also why many camera manufacturer go hybrid and with the exception Sony do not provide an FF sensor for this new segment.

Some pro continue to have FF only because advenced features are only made available on the FF high end bodies, some choose it because they really prefer the FF format, some do because they can't afford an MF digital and some already switched to Fuji mirorless at least for some work because they are tired of the huge and heavy FF DSLRs.

It is always difficult to predict future but if we keep the trend of the latest 150 years, the long term is going to smaller and smaller formats because conveniance trump ultimate quality...

Going FF allow pentax to have a more complete offering and I hope they will make good money on it. It doesn't mean that FF is the only format with a future.

[mecrox]

Those aren't necessarily exclusive positions. If Nikon and now Sony have been successful on the FF question then they may have destroyed the perception or even need for a $1500 APS-C body. As for Canon, would the 7D Mk II exist if it wasn't being pitched as a killer video camera that also takes great stills?

Regardless, if those three camera makers control enough of the mind-share among consumers then Ricoh is best to go along with them instead of swim against a strong current. Despite the goals Ricoh stated a couple or more years ago that they intend to be a major or dominant supplier of ILCs, they aren't. A guerrilla producer/marketer often has one great strategy to win... find a weakness in their competitor's strength and exploit it. Canon and Nikon's strengths are their lens collections (IMHO). Their weakness is only some are optically stabilized.

If I was designing Ricoh's next camera, it might look like this:
FF
IBIS
Variable-transmission mirror (more practical in FF due to higher light levels?)
On-sensor PDAF
Unadulterated 14-bit RAW files

No one builds a camera like this. Sony could come close (if one can accept an EVF) if they changed their file format. However, Pentax trumps Sony in lens availability by a very wide margin.

Lol, if one added "Sony Bionz processor" to your list, what we have is basically a Sony DSLR in Pentax clothing and K-mount. In fact, if Sony decided not to pursue their classic A line of DSLRs, Ricoh could step in with Pentax-Sony replacements and perhaps make a rather good job of it instead. Now that could make an interesting alliance.

[Matthew Saville]

The days when "FF" meant "high-end" are over.

There is no space for expensive APS-C bodies in the market anymore. FF is the new normal. In other words, an FF model is the only way to stay in business long-term.

Surely Ricoh can try to target high-end at the same time but I think the Pentax brand is less than ideally positioned for this right now.

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 don't think anyone thinks Pentax is going to turn into Leica -- particularly not when they are selling K50 bodies for sub-300 dollar prices. They just aren't willing to put out a full frame body that is close enough to a K3 (upper end APS-C) that it will steal its sales.

They aren't big enough to have multiple full frame models at this point. Looking at Nikon's lineup -- D610, D750, D810, D4s, Df -- it feels like the D810 is the easiest camera niche for Pentax to emulate and target. D610 is too low priced. I would guess them trying to cross a D750 and D810 and come out with something that fits between there.

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=

[IchabodCrane]

Lol, if one added "Sony Bionz processor" to your list, what we have is basically a Sony DSLR in Pentax clothing and K-mount. In fact, if Sony decided not to pursue their classic A line of DSLRs, Ricoh could step in with Pentax-Sony replacements and perhaps make a rather good job of it instead. Now that could make an interesting alliance.

Except the translucent mirror would, in theory, allow us to keep the OVF.

[Pål Jensen]

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%.

It isn't really true that advanced APS is on a significant decline (apart form further marked segmentation that hits everyone). APS is still 90% of the DSLR marked and the Canon 7D is the most popular advanced DSLR there is by a considerable margin.
I suspect the reason we haven't seen a D400 yet is because Nikon fear serious decline in their (affordable) FF sales. Both Nikon and Canon have promised more APS lenses.
While it is true that FF isn't exclusively high end anylonger, it may be that for Pentax it will be.

[mecrox]

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=

Here in the UK, Hong-Kong-based dealers offer them at huge discounts to the official price together with a three-year dealer warranty. Plenty of people seem to buy them so I guess it's quite popular and fairly safe if you stick to one of the better-known outfits like Digital Rev. However, it may be that this road leads to financial ruin for the camera-maker. It's not hard to imagine a scenario in which boatloads of cameras are shipped into the grey market at tiny margins to keep the sales figures sweet for all those stockholders but at the price of rendering the company's underlying profitability a basketcase. For some corporates which concentrate much more on high-margin low-volume stuff, and I take Ricoh to be among them, this might well be a matter of "Don't go there." So I'm expecting a fair and even tempting price but not fireworks.