[philmorley]

sony = 24mp, samsung will be at least the same if not bigger, they have to beat sony... what people need or want is less important than winning

[deudeu]

You had me until this line. Plan on about $4,000 for the features you listed.

The D700 is at B&H for $3000 body only. The 5D is $1900.

When I bought my GX-10, it cost $695 with the kit lens. The Nikon equivalent (D80) was $1100 with a kit lens.

So the Samsung prosumer with the same sensor as Nikon's cost about 65% of the Nikon. The K10D was slightly more expensive than the GX-10, so lets say it was about 75% of the price of the D80.
If this is also true for a prosumer FF camera, the Pentax could cost 75% of the Nikon D700. That's $2250. So I think that my guess of $2500 is not too bad of a guess.

[deudeu]

sony = 24mp, samsung will be at least the same if not bigger, they have to beat sony... what people need or want is less important than winning

I don't know if this is still true. I think that by going only 12 Mp on their FF sensor, Nikon started something. The Megapixel race may be over. Especially in the higher end models.

It seams obvious to me that someone that understands the advantage of a FF sensor should understand why less pixels also means less noise. If one looks at how well the D3 is doing compared to the Mark III, one understands that for serious consumers, image quality is more important than numbers.

I hope that the samsung people will understand that too!

[OniFactor]

I don't know if this is still true. I think that by going only 12 Mp on their FF sensor, Nikon started something. The Megapixel race may be over. Especially in the higher end models.

It seams obvious to me that someone that understands the advantage of a FF sensor should understand why less pixels also means less noise. If one looks at how well the D3 is doing compared to the Mark III, one understands that for serious consumers, image quality is more important than numbers.

I hope that the samsung people will understand that too!

until, of course, the bombshell that is Sony's 24mp sensor drops, and astounds the world with it's clarity, and lights fires under every other manufacturer's arses to catch up..

[ogl]

$3000 for 12 mp camera in 2008 is too expensive. IMO.

[wiyum]

sony = 24mp, samsung will be at least the same if not bigger, they have to beat sony... what people need or want is less important than winning

I hope that this isn't a popular opinion. Overblown focus on resolution has lead to way too many cameras not living up to my expectations on many other fronts, when at a lesser (yet still useful) resolution they could have been great.

For me, and for many others I presume, the goal has been to "beat" film. When digital first emerged, it was clear to me that the technology would eventually get there, that digital would give us everything that film had, plus the added benefits of digital (no lab, no "film & processing" costs, easy image finessing and finishing from home without special equipment). That's been done, but only in cases where manufacturers have realized that going above certain resolutions is only worth it if it doesn't handicap the camera in other places (noise, fps, etc). Getting into a pissing contest over resolution seems so 2002 to me, I'd hate to see another good camera die because of it.

$3000 for 12 mp camera in 2008 is too expensive. IMO.

But I agree with this. The D700 looks like a great camera, and it looks like it is offering plenty that the 5D didn't, so bully for Nikon. The thing is, the 5D was 12MP for $3200 back in 2005. Additional features or no, the way to cut at Canon is either by jumping over the 5D in a big way or by undercutting it in price. The D700 at $2500, with its additional features, would have been killer. At $3000, the cliff's notes read like Nikon showing up to the party 3 years late. It'll sell well, but if Canon makes the right moves and sells a new, improved 5D for significantly less than $3000, then they'll have stolen Nikon's thunder.

As for Pentax, I'm still of the opinion that a FF body would kill them, no matter how they play it. For them, Digital 645 done exactly right is the only way for them to make a move in the pro business. Their 1.5x crop cameras and lenses are great and they're doing plenty that others cannot. Getting into FF would require more resources than they can offer, if lenses are to back it up (and they must). Digital 645 is the only "big" option they have to offer that others don't have, and I think that if they're smart, they'll continue to let the smaller sensor (and the amazing lenses they're making for them; unique to the industry they have a large stable of top quality small-sensor primes, and their small-sensor zooms outmatch others too) keep them competitive in the low end. If they need to move upmarket, trying to revive full frame makes a lot less sense to me than leapfrogging the competition and offering the world's first "affordable" digital medium format. The 645 lenses were phenomenal, and a conservative but generously-priced MF camera could make a splash that Pentax desperately needs.

Pentax, awhile back, seemed to realize that most consumers don't even know about sensor size, and that if you offerred them a great camera with lenses that fulfilled all needs of that camera's sensor, it didn't matter how big the sensor was. They've built a great stable of lenses for small sensors, and have a great roadmap to continue that strategy. Abandoning it now, diverting resources from lenses for the K10D, K20D, K200D etc etc and starting over with full frame lenses seems like suicide to me. Not enough money to make everything work for a full frame body that, while perhaps great, is merely "catching up" to the FF bodies of (at that point) Canon, Nikon, and Sony. Going bigger than FF is the only way they get noticed.

But all I really want from them, one way or the other, is that DA 15mm Limited.

[thibs]

3000$ is an introduction price. They know Canon's coming and that they'll have to lower price, which is indeed (IMO) why they charge much know.

[Teo D'Or]

I think Nikon is aiming strongly for the pro journalism/sport market. I see the D700 more as the second camera for the pro and less as the affordable FF for the enthusiast. The D700 is the performace of the D3 in a smaller body, without the features of a true pro body (WiFi, vertical grip, two card slots, etc.) It's obvious that with the D300, D700, D3 and the upcoming D3X, Nikon is kicking Canon's a** in the high-end market.

But that is only the peak of the iceberg. In the low- and mid-end range, Canon is by far better. The 40D, 450D, 1000D are selling better than the D80,D60,D40x. They are also better cameras. You can still find the 400D and 350D brand new. The 5D is selling like crazy at 1900$, at least here. Add to that the USM primes that Nikon is missing. Canon is the king of this segment, no doubt about it.

I can't think of any Nikon worth buying under 1700$. And between the D300 and the 5D it would really be a close call, the 5D probably winning it for me. If you don't need speed at a very high level, i see no reason to choose Nikon right now.

At this point, i think "the camera to beat" is the 40D. And the K20D is doing that in terms of image quality, resolution and (subjectively) ergonomics. If it would have faster AF and 6 fps, there would be no doubt about it. And something like the current 5D for 1800-1900$ would also be a hit. With the same faster AF and 5fps it would be everything i would need. And let's not forget about the Shake Reduction. I think it would sell much better than the 645D or a D3-like K1D.

So, a K30D and a 5D-like K1D is what i would do. I think Pentax always meant great quality at a very good price. That's why i chose the K100D when i chose it. The K20D and K200D are just that, the Limited lenses are huge bang for the buck, old lenses are great. I hope Pentax will stick to that.

[blwnhr]

The lens issue is way out of proportions. How many lenses do the average person buy (or average pro for that matter): answer 2-3.

One of the biggest reasons I will be walking away from Pentax is lack of lenses. I have been waiting well over 18 months for a 70-200 f2.8 lens and still there are none available in Australia.

You have sprouted in other threads that there are 24 million Pentax lenses out there, but they are not available everywhere and not everyone wants to buy something second hand. I want a new lens, with warranty, that if there are any faults with I can return it to a shop.

Currently this is not offered by Pentax. They are also no where near following their release dates indicated on the roadmap, so that is worthless and there is no word of any additions or changes to model lineup from the manufacturer.

[GaryM]

One of the biggest reasons I will be walking away from Pentax is lack of lenses. I have been waiting well over 18 months for a 70-200 f2.8 lens and still there are none available in Australia.

The 70-200 range was a standard back in the 35mm film days. The DA*50-135/2.8 is the APS-C equivalent of that focal length range. It's interesting that so many are asking for a full-frame body, and yet they have adapted to the 1.5x crop factor now. Can't have it both ways!

[ogl]

One of the biggest reasons I will be walking away from Pentax is lack of lenses. I have been waiting well over 18 months for a 70-200 f2.8 lens and still there are none available in Australia.

You have sprouted in other threads that there are 24 million Pentax lenses out there, but they are not available everywhere and not everyone wants to buy something second hand. I want a new lens, with warranty, that if there are any faults with I can return it to a shop.

Currently this is not offered by Pentax. They are also no where near following their release dates indicated on the roadmap, so that is worthless and there is no word of any additions or changes to model lineup from the manufacturer.

I have no any problem to find used FA*80-200/2.8. Why do you have?

[thibs]

I have no any problem to find used FA*80-200/2.8. Why do you have?

I guess the problem is paying for the stupid price it sells at

[mikereid]

Why bother? The K20D sensor is absolutely fantastic. I say build a better body around that sensor. The high iso, and resolution are already better then some FF sensors from the other guys. Now just add some better AF, FPS, and they could use that sensor for a few more years in thier new cameras.

because a lot of people would like to use wide angle greater than about 18mm?

[Entropy]

$3000 for 12 mp camera in 2008 is too expensive. IMO.

Not all pixels are created equal.

The 14.6MP sensor in the K20D is pushing the limits of most lenses today. I don't think it's possible to go very much farther with an APS-C sensor and get meaningful results other than a nice number for marketing.

[ogl]

I guess the problem is paying for the stupid price it sells at

Have a look at the price of Sony 70-200/2.8