[*isteve]

Agreed. Recently again I heard a salesrep recommending C*n*n over Pentax because of just that.
However, another pro camerashop in the Netherlands is considering to drop Pentax completely because they can not get supplies... Not sure which is the bigger problem...

Pentax are selling more than they can actually make and there is a supply problem. Hmm, well there is no point in trying to sell more or make a new camera is there, they should make more of what they have and similar models since they are generating such demand for bodies and lenses.

Your argument is totally contradictory and salesmen sell what they make commission on. I heard one tell a customer that Canon used plastic lens mounts because they were more waterproof. What does that prove?

Always be behind the demand curve especially with a recession looming - or have you ever run a manufacturing business?

[*isteve]

The D300 is selling way more than the 5D even through the 5D is now available at half its original price and there are still stocks of the camera 3 years on. What does that tell you?

It tells me...

1. A crappy 20D body for $1500 doesnt look like good value whatever the sensor
2. If they are still trying to sell them (and still have so much stock) then they over-inventorised and have too much excess stock. Probably why the 5Dmk2 has beem so late to the party.

Canon are suffering primarily because they dont have anything in the D300 league. The gap between the 40D and 5D in price is a yawning chasm, yet the 40D outperforms the 5D in just about every way that counts. I would not look at a 5D twice nowadays. Its like putting a V8 in a ford focus.

And yet even now, no-one can release a FF camera to the market for <$3000 (call it $2000 after a year or two). Still more than I would bother paying precisely because I do run a business.

And for the record, the Nikon D40 was the camera primarily responsible for Nikon pulling ahead of Canon in the DSLR market. I think the D60 is a weak offering but it still feels better than the 450D. However Nikon and Canon have lost the low-midrange plot recently because they have spent so much time trying to murder each other in the high end. As a result Sony have actually been handed a leg up for doing more or less nothing except flooding the low-mid end with new bodies. Did very nicely too, which is why you will see a new low end Pentax this year. They missed the boat too.

Pentax are not competing with Nikon and Canon at the top end so there is no point in trying at this point. They are competing with Oly and Sony. They dont have to take sales from the big boys, they want to be #3 eventually, and that means expanding the core product line not jumping into a market they have no access to.

So dont ask whether Pentax need an FF camera to compete with C&N because its utterly irrelevant, instead ask how many people will buy an A900.

Lame as it may sound, but i will quote myself on this

"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."

What i see is a great opening in the market. Between the C 40D and the N D700 there are only two cameras: D300 and 5D. If Pentax can match or beat the 40D on all aspects (so better AF and fps in the K20D) , and a 5fps 5D-like 2k$ Pentax would beat the D300 and 5D into the ground, so they would have an amazing target audience. The next higher priced camera would be the D700, offering little for the 1k+.

Honestly, how many of you would buy a 645D or a 4k$ K1D similar to the D3? And how many of you would buy a 6fps K20D with improved AF or/and a 1800$ 5fps 14Mpix FF?

So according to you a company 1/30th the size of Nikon with a handful of engineers and one glass foundry should use all their resources attempting to develop one camera to compete with a Nikon D3 (at a loss) and a whole new range of lenses then compound the loss by trying to match Canon's marketing budget?

Of course they could use the same resources to compete in the two most profitable sectors (D40 and D300) and make money, watch how the market goes and come out with one next year if its worth it.

Whats your rush? Would you spend $3000 on a FF Pentax for a miniscule real world improvement over one I can happily buy for $800?

100% with you on this one.

Pentax are selling more than they can actually make and there is a supply problem.

That explains the price drops and rebates...I guess. Thought I agree that Pentax production might not be able to hold 4-5 differents camera models on a similar demand.

[Tom Lusk]

Something does not seem to add up here:

"Pentax are selling more than they can actually make and there is a supply problem."

Why would a manufacturer that has a product that is so popular that they are unable to meet demand offer rebates, and their retailers cut pricing?

My economics prof. never warned me about that scenerio.

And for the record, the Nikon D40 was the camera primarily responsible for Nikon pulling ahead of Canon in the DSLR market.

Agreed 100%

I think the D60 is a weak offering but it still feels better than the 450D.

I have to disagree on this one. The 450D looks far better than any camera on its level including the K200d.

Coming back to topic, my take is that if Pentax goes after a FF camera will be cos of Samsung support (and demands). Whether or not is a good step is something that the time will say. If Pentax is really committed to be a niche player then a 645D or 67D fits better this description. I have the feeling that Samsumg will go after the "usual" market and Pentax will be responsible of the niche stuff.

[Pål Jensen]

Something does not seem to add up here:

"Pentax are selling more than they can actually make and there is a supply problem."

Why would a manufacturer that has a product that is so popular that they are unable to meet demand offer rebates, and their retailers cut pricing?

My economics prof. never warned me about that scenerio.

Hoya describes the sales of the K20D and K200D as sluggish.....

[Pål Jensen]

The D300 is selling way more than the 5D even through the 5D is now available at half its original price and there are still stocks of the camera 3 years on. What does that tell you?

It tells me...

1. A crappy 20D body for $1500 doesnt look like good value whatever the sensor
2. If they are still trying to sell them (and still have so much stock) then they over-inventorised and have too much excess stock. Probably why the 5Dmk2 has beem so late to the party.

Canon are suffering primarily because they dont have anything in the D300 league. The gap between the 40D and 5D in price is a yawning chasm, yet the 40D outperforms the 5D in just about every way that counts. I would not look at a 5D twice nowadays. Its like putting a V8 in a ford focus.

And yet even now, no-one can release a FF camera to the market for <$3000 (call it $2000 after a year or two). Still more than I would bother paying precisely because I do run a business.

And for the record, the Nikon D40 was the camera primarily responsible for Nikon pulling ahead of Canon in the DSLR market. I think the D60 is a weak offering but it still feels better than the 450D. However Nikon and Canon have lost the low-midrange plot recently because they have spent so much time trying to murder each other in the high end. As a result Sony have actually been handed a leg up for doing more or less nothing except flooding the low-mid end with new bodies. Did very nicely too, which is why you will see a new low end Pentax this year. They missed the boat too.

Pentax are not competing with Nikon and Canon at the top end so there is no point in trying at this point. They are competing with Oly and Sony. They dont have to take sales from the big boys, they want to be #3 eventually, and that means expanding the core product line not jumping into a market they have no access to.

So dont ask whether Pentax need an FF camera to compete with C&N because its utterly irrelevant, instead ask how many people will buy an A900.

Very few will buy the Sony A900. Far fewer than buyers for the Pentax K3D. :ugh:
Anyway, the point you are making, taking it to its natural conclusion, is that all you need is one model; the one thats always most profitable at that particular point in time. Only one camera among many potential cameras can be most profitable. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way; you need to have a compete selection. Pentax have spent all their resources the last few years on the mid-class. It is time to move on - both at the higher and lower end. Nikon and Canon diminate the low end sales not because they necessarily have the superior products, but because they are the only one with a consistent market presense in all segments of slr's in the last 20 years, and this have given them an enormeous market penetration. This happened because other manufacturers, including Pentax, followed more profitable market segments instead, only proving that short term profit might hurt long term goals .
Pouring out more entry level cameras that may or not be popular for limited period of time is a recepie of getting illoyal customers that switch to a "serious" brand when it is time to upgrade.

When it comes to the 5D, it is more an issue of an outdated camera + sensor than the fact it is full frame...

[Pål Jensen]

Hoya describes the sales of the K20D and K200D as sluggish.....

The main reason, apart from Pentax marketing and market penetration, is that the K20D and K200D are too close to each other, and to their predecessors. Pentax need to expand their line-up and differentiate their models.

[JohnV3]

Steve: From your description of the Pentax corp., it sounds like they are the equivilent of a mom & pop operation hanging on by a thread. I hope that is not the case. It has been said that Pentax lost ground because they were late getting into digital. More ground can be lost if most other brands have FF and not Pentax. It is not about competeing with the big two FF's at this time, it's about staying in the advanced camera arena. I cannot afford a FF camera nor do I need one. The market positioning of Pentax needs one. Im not an economist of a marketing professional. It's just my personal logical view.

John

Ah, crap, you are right. It was about 645D. I was flipping through these magazines at a Japanese bookstore in Torrance, California. I was in hurry. I wanted to pee badly. My mistake. I am a moron. I do have to say that it is a pretty cool magazine though.

[benjikan]

Steve: From your description of the Pentax corp., it sounds like they are the equivilent of a mom & pop operation hanging on by a thread. I hope that is not the case. It has been said that Pentax lost ground because they were late getting into digital. More ground can be lost if most other brands have FF and not Pentax. It is not about competeing with the big two FF's at this time, it's about staying in the advanced camera arena. I cannot afford a FF camera nor do I need one. The market positioning of Pentax needs one. Im not an economist of a marketing professional. It's just my personal logical view.

John

I agree. Like formula racing, all auto brands need an "ICON". We won't buy an F1 race car, but we can sure dream about the possibility of driving one. It is important for the brand identity to know that R&D are striving to develop advanced technologies and filter those advances in to the market place. It just bolsters the brands credibility in the eyes of the consumer.

Ben

[ogl]

I have a look at Pentax's lenses roadmap one more time and have no any hopes to see FF this year. Maybe Samsung?
But need to make at least two FF * zooms - something like 28-70 and 80-200 with such body.
It could be hard to come to the market of FF cameras without such lenses.
And wide lenses...

[thibs]

I have a look at Pentax's lenses roadmap one more time and have no any hopes to see FF this year. Maybe Samsung?
But need to make at least two FF * zooms - something like 28-70 and 80-200 with such body.
It could be hard to come to the market of FF cameras without such lenses.
And wide lenses...

You really beleive Pentax would be stupid enough to put FF lenses on the roadmap?

LOL

[Teo D'Or]

The D300 is selling way more than the 5D even through the 5D is now available at half its original price and there are still stocks of the camera 3 years on. What does that tell you?

It tells me...

1. A crappy 20D body for $1500 doesnt look like good value whatever the sensor
2. If they are still trying to sell them (and still have so much stock) then they over-inventorised and have too much excess stock. Probably why the 5Dmk2 has beem so late to the party.

Canon are suffering primarily because they dont have anything in the D300 league. The gap between the 40D and 5D in price is a yawning chasm, yet the 40D outperforms the 5D in just about every way that counts. I would not look at a 5D twice nowadays. Its like putting a V8 in a ford focus.

And yet even now, no-one can release a FF camera to the market for <$3000 (call it $2000 after a year or two). Still more than I would bother paying precisely because I do run a business.

And for the record, the Nikon D40 was the camera primarily responsible for Nikon pulling ahead of Canon in the DSLR market. I think the D60 is a weak offering but it still feels better than the 450D. However Nikon and Canon have lost the low-midrange plot recently because they have spent so much time trying to murder each other in the high end. As a result Sony have actually been handed a leg up for doing more or less nothing except flooding the low-mid end with new bodies. Did very nicely too, which is why you will see a new low end Pentax this year. They missed the boat too.

Pentax are not competing with Nikon and Canon at the top end so there is no point in trying at this point. They are competing with Oly and Sony. They dont have to take sales from the big boys, they want to be #3 eventually, and that means expanding the core product line not jumping into a market they have no access to.

So dont ask whether Pentax need an FF camera to compete with C&N because its utterly irrelevant, instead ask how many people will buy an A900.

I don't agree that the D300 is selling way better than the 5D. I don't know in other parts of the world, but here the 5D is HOT, i know this for sure. It is not only visible in the photo community, but i also have some numbers from several retailers...and the 5D is in great demand right now.

Less scientifically, i looked on flickr. If there are a lot of D300 users, they sure don't post the pictures they take.

Camera Total no. of images Avg no. of users
Nikon D40-------------12,179,247-------------2415
Nikon D60-----------------669,981---------------383
Nikon D300-----------------47,621----------------29
Nikon D3------------------650,435---------------231
Canon 5D-------------10,672,917-------------1497
Canon 450D--------------850,127--------------511

The D300 is worse even than the D3. Clearly, this is not bulletproof, but i don't think it is very far from the truth.

Also, i think the only reason why Canon will not to keep the current 5D in production is it's relatively high production cost.

I think you are rather unfair to the 5D. The 40D outperforms the 5D in many ways, but NOT in image quality. Basically the 5D and the K20D have almost the same weaknesses compared to the 40D: AF and fps. You can't say that the K20D is better than the 40D because it has better IQ, even if it is slower, and then turn around and say the 40D is better than the 5D because of speed.

The D40 was a smart move from Nikon. But how can the D60 be a better camera than the 450D when you can't actually have AF on ANY reasonable priced prime lens on it? That would be a huge bummer for me. The D40 and D60 are just an upgrade from a P&S or bridge. If you want a fast lens, you gotta go to the D80 at least. And that camera is murdered by the 40D, the 30D, the K10D, the K20D, the A700 and some others. I bet the D90 won't top the 40D or the K20D. So, it is pretty sad in the low end Nikon land.

How many people will buy an A900? How many people will buy an A700 or A300 or A350, because they know they have the possibility to go higher if they need/want to? How many people buy a Mercedes C instead of a BMW 3 Series or an Audi A4 just because the S-Class is (traditionally) a better car than the 7 Series or A8? How many people buy Leica?