[Zygonyx]

Matthew : add a $500-1000 to take into account the low volumes/elasticity factor for Ricoh's corporate profitability, and you are in, imho.
Unexpected new differentiating functionnalities included...

[Clavius]

Yes, but the K-3 II is "already" $940 on B&H. Are we expecting three times the camera, or just twice the camera? ($2K vs $3K)

I myself don't know what to expect. The K-3 is a very fine camera. K-3 functionality with an FF sensor without much size increase would already be fantastic, imho. Then looking at it the way you do. That extra sensor area increase does not equal three times the camera. Not even two times. More like 1.5x.

[Ash]

Remember the law of diminishing returns. Also applies with MF.
Value for money comes in the more commercially available, less expensive to manufacture goods. This does not mean they are proportionally less capable tools...

[Zygonyx]

Yeah, remember the 645d/z sensor is just x4 the APS-c sensor size, and launch price for new digital 645 never was $ 4,000

[DeadJohn]

...snipped for brevity... 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.

Agreed. Ricoh shows no signs of changing that price strategy, though. The GRii is less than a month old and already had a price drop. Bodies at least keep dropping. Lenses go up and down, so buying lenses can feel like gambling:

"2 lenses I want are on sale. I can only afford 1 now. How can I guess which will be on a bigger sale soon, so I can buy the other one now?"

[Nicolas06]

Honestly, FF sensor by itself doesn't add much to the cost to me... Maybe 200$ more than for an APSC... Body like D7200 already have all the features you could require... But still the D750 is not just D7200 price + 200$, a part of the additionnal price goes into added inventory and costs of having a low volume product, but most of it goes for much better margin.

Like it or not, APSC vs FF is mainly market segmentation... The camera are nearly the same and offer nearly the same feature but if you are willing to pay 2X or 3X more for the best of the best, why not take the money from you ? Add 200 or 300$ worth of features and ask for 1000-1500$ in final price.

That's marketing 101.

That's why there is several FF... There the low end FF where you even remove feature in exchange of FF and get a basic sensor (like it would change in any way the cost of it... sensor cost is mostly linked to size), the average FF with same feature as high end APSC and a good FF sensor... And the high end FF with some special feature (like very high FPS) that you sell for a crazy price.

It seems logical that pentax can't do the special high end FF for a crazy price and a cripled entry level would not do neither. So yeah 2000-3000$ range for a middle class FF seems the most logical path.

[Clavius]

It says it self, that the first FF will be more expensive then what pentaxians are used to with other cameras. Not only because its a FF, but i've said it before; Pentax/Ricoh aims for the pro-marked firstly. There will most certainly come more FF's at a later stage. They need to be seen in the pro-marked (one of the reasons I got signed) to sell more in the "normal" marked. This doesn't mean that everybody can't buy the first FF. Of course everyone can, but just bar in mind, that the pros are what they are aiming for now. So dont expect the cheapest FF on the marked when it arrives. Sorry! But with Pentax, you'll still get more for your money then with CaNikon.

What rich pro's will it attract? Pro-photographer often equals dirt-poor. Like I posted in the other thread: Frankly, to do my studio work, all I needed was the bigger sensor for the lowest cost possible. All the other fancy modern features like blazing AF, ever increasing ISO performance, WR, etc, can be stolen for all I care. I only upgraded from my old 5D to A7r because my 5D was falling apart and the refurbished A7r was a total steal. (5D had ~475000 actuations!) The extra focussing controls in the A7r were only a big fat bonus. I do this work to make a buck, not to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

[GlassJunkie]

My first predictions on the long tele were a bit off, due to the FF/ length/ glass required skew I didn't see... so my 138-380 (67mm) APSC thought became 150-400 (86mm) and FF (in real life)... So much for that idea....

As a lifelong student of global Biz and having worked at the top one of the great Japanese firms as a gaijin, IHMO we are watching a war come (in VERY slow motion). RICOH is a truly well run company, with exceptional leadership. Kicked Canon and Kyocera quite a bit, chewed up Xerox and other wannabes (quality and performance). Pentax was a natural deal. Ricoh will have similar capabilities and offerings as Canon (copiers/ optics/ photo, reproduction, etc.. Nikon will shrink. In 15 years, Nikon will look like Hasselblad and Mamiya. Olympus and SONY (cameras) will have different businesses/owners or be gone...

The Ricoh-Pentax CEO was remarkably blunt when he said they had a plan and strategy to become #1 in DSLR/High end in two steps over the next 20 years or so. The majors have share, and brand (at significant costs). Nikon has MASSIVE financial problems (as does SONY Camera- not sensors), and a major piece of a specialized niche. Canon has diversified economic power but (like Nikon) a big COGS/SGA problem in photo. Advertising/ promotion costs for them are silly high... Pentax learned by watching them play leapfrog, while charting course... Then Ricoh stepped in....

I see RP leadership comments suggesting:

Seizing the leadership position in high end APSc (wildlife, etc. as a market focus already stated). Their dominance in high end APSc lenses is more powerful than some think. More bang, less weight, less cost. As the "follower" they have accelerated innovations during the past 5-6 years. K-3 WAS a huge shock to CaNikon. A year earlier, they were singing the death of APSc and in 2014 they both had multiple iterations of their higher end APSc's. In Japanese management, this was total panic.

The empirical threat of several truths... FF has weaknesses... Size, weight, required glass, cost, processor limitations (file size driven). Now for a very scary thought... Take 4/3 pixel pitch and build a better APSC higher res sensor (36mp+) ? FF at less than 50MP becomes the landscape/architects/ real estate and boater's sales rep's camera).

Whacko predictions anew ... Ricoh-Pentax buys Leica, SONY Camera (not sensors) or Olympus (next 3 years)... If SONY or Olympus, keep the good stuff (like ROKKOR-Old Minolta glass plants and Olympus medical), dump the rest after refreshing small and MILC add ons...

OK, next nonsense... Within 2 years most PTX launches an APSc at 32mp or better, raising the FF bar to 64MP, which bounces up against glass/coatings again. APSC size/cost for performance shoves FF hard to an extreme niche (4 years). CPUs get fast enough and pattern recognition software advances to allow a "mobile" but effective iteration of pixel shift 4 years). OVFs end up with sufficient technology to measure eye movement to lock a single/packet of AF sensors for wildlife, basically driving fast moving AF by where the eye is looking. Will take 10 years to perfect that one beyond a gimmick...

Just a few ramblings

[Rondec]

What rich pro's will it attract? Pro-photographer often equals dirt-poor. Like I posted in the other thread: Frankly, to do my studio work, all I needed was the bigger sensor for the lowest cost possible. All the other fancy modern features like blazing AF, ever increasing ISO performance, WR, etc, can be stolen for all I care. I only upgraded from my old 5D to A7r because my 5D was falling apart and the refurbished A7r was a total steal. (5D had ~475000 actuations!) The extra focussing controls in the A7r were only a big fat bonus. I do this work to make a buck, not to get rid of it as quickly as possible.

There are actually a lot of "pros" for whom photography is a side career. They do something else and then shoot weddings or landscape on weekends. These, to me, are the folks who are most likely to have flirtations with Pentax full frame. People who are fully supported by their photography are pretty stingy at buying new gear and may be shooting a couple generations old D700 or 5D MK II with some older lenses.

Most of the folks I see interested in full frame on the forum are more hobby photographers (like myself) and a 500 dollar difference in price is probably not the end of the world in our decision whether or not to purchase such a camera.

[thibs]

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...

OKm I see your pointbut I don't agree: I don't see why expanding into new market would e a problem for existing user base unless price goes up and the features/price ratio goes way down.
APS market for Pentax won't change because a high end cam comes and I don' t think a high end cam means there's no affordable FF coming too.

Actually, I'm totally convinced they're already finilizing the next one. The affordable one. The one we can actually pay for. Ricoh isn't stupid. But introducing a D610 competitor will do nothing for them image wise and that's what they want/need. Unless westill want our cheap Pentax with 10 yearsl ate AF and noisy lenses.

I also think some of the stated prices are way over the head but I think that's our fault (talking while we really have no idea) rather than Ricoh's.

[Rondec]

OKm I see your pointbut I don't agree: I don't see why expanding into new market would e a problem for existing user base unless price goes up and the features/price ratio goes way down.
APS market for Pentax won't change because a high end cam comes and I don' t think a high end cam means there's no affordable FF coming too.

Actually, I'm totally convinced they're already finilizing the next one. The affordable one. The one we can actually pay for. Ricoh isn't stupid. But introducing a D610 competitor will do nothing for them image wise and that's what they want/need. Unless westill want our cheap Pentax with 10 yearsl ate AF and noisy lenses.

I also think some of the stated prices are way over the head but I think that's our fault (talking while we really have no idea) rather than Ricoh's.

Very true.

I think prices are completely unknown right now. I frankly don't even think Ricoh knows for sure where they will launch it. It may be that they have a ball park they are shooting for, but as far as knowing that it will be 2899, I doubt it.

As to the whole point of full frame, it is to give an aura of security and room to grow, with a definite improvement in image quality over upper end APS-C. It is hard to imagine that niche being filled with a D610 clone. That may certainly come down the road, but right now, they need something bigger and better.

[Zygonyx]

A survey on Pentax K-S2 and what are the motivations to buy or not Pentax gear including suggestions for APS-C and FF formats, has just been sent by Ricoh to its registered customers.

If you complete the 7 pages survey, your Ricoh account is credited by 500 points representing 5€ on future purchase.

This is now the third survey that i am proposed by Ricoh in about one year ; about 3 months ago re. 645Z survey, i got a free Flucard being amongst the 50 first answers posted ... : that sound promising as far as modern and long term customer relation is concerned !

And maybe a more efficient way to pass your personnal messages than this place

[derekkite]

My first predictions on the long tele were a bit off, due to the FF/ length/ glass required skew I didn't see... so my 138-380 (67mm) APSC thought became 150-400 (86mm) and FF (in real life)... So much for that idea....

As a lifelong student of global Biz and having worked at the top one of the great Japanese firms as a gaijin, IHMO we are watching a war come (in VERY slow motion). RICOH is a truly well run company, with exceptional leadership. Kicked Canon and Kyocera quite a bit, chewed up Xerox and other wannabes (quality and performance). Pentax was a natural deal. Ricoh will have similar capabilities and offerings as Canon (copiers/ optics/ photo, reproduction, etc.. Nikon will shrink. In 15 years, Nikon will look like Hasselblad and Mamiya. Olympus and SONY (cameras) will have different businesses/owners or be gone...

The Ricoh-Pentax CEO was remarkably blunt when he said they had a plan and strategy to become #1 in DSLR/High end in two steps over the next 20 years or so. The majors have share, and brand (at significant costs). Nikon has MASSIVE financial problems (as does SONY Camera- not sensors), and a major piece of a specialized niche. Canon has diversified economic power but (like Nikon) a big COGS/SGA problem in photo. Advertising/ promotion costs for them are silly high... Pentax learned by watching them play leapfrog, while charting course... Then Ricoh stepped in....

I see RP leadership comments suggesting:

Seizing the leadership position in high end APSc (wildlife, etc. as a market focus already stated). Their dominance in high end APSc lenses is more powerful than some think. More bang, less weight, less cost. As the "follower" they have accelerated innovations during the past 5-6 years. K-3 WAS a huge shock to CaNikon. A year earlier, they were singing the death of APSc and in 2014 they both had multiple iterations of their higher end APSc's. In Japanese management, this was total panic.

The empirical threat of several truths... FF has weaknesses... Size, weight, required glass, cost, processor limitations (file size driven). Now for a very scary thought... Take 4/3 pixel pitch and build a better APSC higher res sensor (36mp+) ? FF at less than 50MP becomes the landscape/architects/ real estate and boater's sales rep's camera).

Whacko predictions anew ... Ricoh-Pentax buys Leica, SONY Camera (not sensors) or Olympus (next 3 years)... If SONY or Olympus, keep the good stuff (like ROKKOR-Old Minolta glass plants and Olympus medical), dump the rest after refreshing small and MILC add ons...

OK, next nonsense... Within 2 years most PTX launches an APSc at 32mp or better, raising the FF bar to 64MP, which bounces up against glass/coatings again. APSC size/cost for performance shoves FF hard to an extreme niche (4 years). CPUs get fast enough and pattern recognition software advances to allow a "mobile" but effective iteration of pixel shift 4 years). OVFs end up with sufficient technology to measure eye movement to lock a single/packet of AF sensors for wildlife, basically driving fast moving AF by where the eye is looking. Will take 10 years to perfect that one beyond a gimmick...

Just a few ramblings

Oddly, outside of the merger stuff which who knows, I would tend to agree. Nothing worse for Nikon and Canon to have a multi million dollar marketing campaign for Full Frame As The Future have it's knees kicked out from under it by the K-3. It blows me away the amount of camera I have for such a low price. Nikon and Canon were forced to respond.

I wonder if the Sony Mirrorless As The Future will face the same reality. Processing power is not inexpensive, and a viable EVF requires all the processing power that a K-3 has just to show you what you are shooting at, then add on the other stuff. I can see some really interesting hybrid OVF/EVF schemes that would take the best of both worlds.

A low noise 32mp APSC would be great for wildlife shooting. The actual reach of the K-3 vs the K-5 is remarkable due to higher resolution. A full frame would be of interest to me only due to the noise characteristics, at the cost of resolution.

The new Sony chips have fast readout characteristics that are of interest for video. Could Pentax be seeing that same speed as a way to have pixel shifting viable for handheld shooting of moving objects? 1/250 or so, even the sync speed would open up interesting possibilities.

[mecrox]

My first predictions on the long tele were a bit off, due to the FF/ length/ glass required skew I didn't see... so my 138-380 (67mm) APSC thought became 150-400 (86mm) and FF (in real life)... So much for that idea....

As a lifelong student of global Biz and having worked at the top one of the great Japanese firms as a gaijin, IHMO we are watching a war come (in VERY slow motion). RICOH is a truly well run company, with exceptional leadership. Kicked Canon and Kyocera quite a bit, chewed up Xerox and other wannabes (quality and performance). Pentax was a natural deal. Ricoh will have similar capabilities and offerings as Canon (copiers/ optics/ photo, reproduction, etc.. Nikon will shrink. In 15 years, Nikon will look like Hasselblad and Mamiya. Olympus and SONY (cameras) will have different businesses/owners or be gone...

The Ricoh-Pentax CEO was remarkably blunt when he said they had a plan and strategy to become #1 in DSLR/High end in two steps over the next 20 years or so. The majors have share, and brand (at significant costs). Nikon has MASSIVE financial problems (as does SONY Camera- not sensors), and a major piece of a specialized niche. Canon has diversified economic power but (like Nikon) a big COGS/SGA problem in photo. Advertising/ promotion costs for them are silly high... Pentax learned by watching them play leapfrog, while charting course... Then Ricoh stepped in....

I see RP leadership comments suggesting:

Seizing the leadership position in high end APSc (wildlife, etc. as a market focus already stated). Their dominance in high end APSc lenses is more powerful than some think. More bang, less weight, less cost. As the "follower" they have accelerated innovations during the past 5-6 years. K-3 WAS a huge shock to CaNikon. A year earlier, they were singing the death of APSc and in 2014 they both had multiple iterations of their higher end APSc's. In Japanese management, this was total panic.

The empirical threat of several truths... FF has weaknesses... Size, weight, required glass, cost, processor limitations (file size driven). Now for a very scary thought... Take 4/3 pixel pitch and build a better APSC higher res sensor (36mp+) ? FF at less than 50MP becomes the landscape/architects/ real estate and boater's sales rep's camera).

Whacko predictions anew ... Ricoh-Pentax buys Leica, SONY Camera (not sensors) or Olympus (next 3 years)... If SONY or Olympus, keep the good stuff (like ROKKOR-Old Minolta glass plants and Olympus medical), dump the rest after refreshing small and MILC add ons...

OK, next nonsense... Within 2 years most PTX launches an APSc at 32mp or better, raising the FF bar to 64MP, which bounces up against glass/coatings again. APSC size/cost for performance shoves FF hard to an extreme niche (4 years). CPUs get fast enough and pattern recognition software advances to allow a "mobile" but effective iteration of pixel shift 4 years). OVFs end up with sufficient technology to measure eye movement to lock a single/packet of AF sensors for wildlife, basically driving fast moving AF by where the eye is looking. Will take 10 years to perfect that one beyond a gimmick...

Just a few ramblings

I love wacky ideas and anyway plenty of folks could say right now that the ideal combo for all occasions is 645 and an APS-C systems. Why FF? Who knows.

However, looking down the pike, any camera-maker needs access to the best sensors and to the best digital processing chips and software. It's the second part - digital processing chips and software - which Ricoh need to get their hands on, at a highly speculative guess. With it, a lot of things become possible like better EVFs and highly capable AF systems. Without it, they are struggling in the pit relying on Fujitsu to deliver another iteration of Milbeaut in their own sweet time, and because it is Milbeaut Ricoh has nothing to distinguish themselves from Nikon which base their stuff on the same system so far as I know. It doesn't matter which brands you own or whose name is on the top plate: without tiptop digital processing a company is at a disadvantage with big beasts like Bionz or Exynos prowling around let alone Apple and the mobile crowd.

[jatrax]

There are actually a lot of "pros" for whom photography is a side career. They do something else and then shoot weddings or landscape on weekends. These, to me, are the folks who are most likely to have flirtations with Pentax full frame. People who are fully supported by their photography are pretty stingy at buying new gear and may be shooting a couple generations old D700 or 5D MK II with some older lenses. Most of the folks I see interested in full frame on the forum are more hobby photographers (like myself) and a 500 dollar difference in price is probably not the end of the world in our decision whether or not to purchase such a camera.

Very true. There might be more 'part time' "pros" than full time. For me the photography income is very nice and allows me to buy whatever gear I want without touching the household budget. But I certainly could not live off of it. But as it has become more of a business and less of a hobby I find myself becoming more conservative about gear costs even though the photo income is increasing. Instead of saying "I want one of those to try" I find myself saying "how will that improve my images and income".