[Class A]

They can always hire some photographers to explain how you'd never need a larger sensor

Exactly.

I'm looking forward to Zack Arias explaining why a 0.52 crop factor (compared to APS-C) is so significantly better than a 0.67 crop factor (FF compared to APS-C), but at the same time making sure that everyone really understands that no one will ever need anything bigger.

I'm sure he'll pull it off.

[Winder]

I hope Fuji was not so short-sighted (or shall I say "narrow-sighted"?) to design the G-mount so that it only supports the current 43.8mm x 32.9mm image size. That's quite a bit smaller than the original 56 mm × 41.5 mm 645 film size. The current GFX image size is only 1.67 x bigger than that of a K-1, which only translates to a 0.74 stop advantage. If you want to use a 3:2 aspect ratio than the GFX format is only 1.48 x bigger than that of the K-1, yielding an ever smaller 0.57 stop advantage.
In other words, the difference between a GFX image in 3:2 format and a K-1 shot is marginal and if you use PixelShift on the K-1, the K-1 will be ahead. In that light, referring to the GFX as a medium format camera, is a bit of stretch, AFAIC.

YES the GFX is designed for the 43.8x32.9 sensor. There is no way to put a larger sensor in that body. This means that Fuji glass will be considerably smaller than Pentax 645 glass of the same focal length. Its a good move by Fuji and gives Fuji fanboys a step-up option that beats Canon/Nikon/Sony. So if you are using the mount as the determining factor as to whether or not it is a FF sensor relative to the mount, then, yes. The GFX is a FF medium format sensor and the 645z is a crop frame medium format sensor even though they have the same size sensor. You can't look at it that way. It makes no sense.

The K-1 with pixel shift will still have some advantages over the GFX, but the GFX is aimed at portrait and wedding photographers and Pixel Shift is of no value to that segment of the market. The GFX has a sensor that is 70% larger which, as the 645z proves, is a substantial increase over 36x24mm. Hopefully Ricoh has a true 645 coming in the near future with some improved glass. Maybe Ricoh can implement IBIS in the 645 line and add pixel shift. Ricoh needs to offer a full sized 645 sensor.

---------- Post added 09-25-16 at 09:10 AM ----------

I'm looking forward to Zack Arias explaining why a 0.52 crop factor (compared to APS-C) is so significantly better than a 0.67 crop factor (FF compared to APS-C), but at the same time making sure that everyone really understands that no one will ever need anything bigger.

For Fuji the GFX makes sense. Their APS-C camera has a sensor with 370mm^2. GFX is 1,437mm^2. A 36x24mm sensor is 864mm^2. The GFX is 1.7x the size of the K-1 sensor and 3.9x the size of APS-C. While I don't agree with Zack and opinion of IQ differences between ASP-C and FF, the MF mirrorless complements Fujis X-mount very well. It also makes sense for Olympus to come out with a 36x24mm mirrorless body. The difference between m4/3 and FF is significant enough that the two systems would complement each other and not compete.

[redrockcoulee]

I did not know, however I read that "The H-System is largely designed and manufactured by Hasselblad, with Fuji's involvement being limited to finalizing Hasselblad's lens designs and producing the glass for the lenses and viewfinders. Fuji was allowed under the agreement to sell the H1 under their name in Japan only." Fuji learned through the partnership and now release their own camera. Does not prevent them to enter the market last.

Fuji made lots of medium format cameras from the fold up 645 to the monster GX680 which is much larger than their 6X9 cameras. They made great LF lenses and the Xpan.

[Class A]

YES the GFX is designed for the 43.8x32.9 sensor. There is no way to put a larger sensor in that body.

As far as I am concerned that is a dumb move by Fuji.

It is just a matter of time till sensors larger than 43.8x32.8 will become commonplace, just like it took only time for 36x24 sensors to be pretty commonplace (and the latter evolution from APS-C to FF as the norm for advanced enthusiast cameras is not over yet).

Its a good move by Fuji and gives Fuji fanboys a step-up option that beats Canon/Nikon/Sony.

Fuji could have had that temporary "win" just as well by using their current sensor but a bigger mount for future growth.

As soon as Pentax releases a digital 645 that does not have a crop sensor anymore then Fuji will be lagging behind again.

The GFX is a FF medium format sensor and the 645z is a crop frame medium format sensor even though they have the same size sensor. You can't look at it that way. It makes no sense.

It makes sense. A small sensor in a small camera does not crop. The same sensor in a bigger camera becomes a "crop sensor", making the camera a crop camera as well. I think we should agree to disagree on that topic.

The K-1 with pixel shift will still have some advantages over the GFX, but the GFX is aimed at portrait and wedding photographers and Pixel Shift is of no value to that segment of the market.

Fair point. But Fuji has still unnecessarily limited the potential of their camera by using a "small" mount. They could have started with crop lenses (much like you can use APS-C lenses on a "135 format camera" with an APS-C sensor) if weight and size are somehow priorities. Having a bigger mount that you don't exploit does not significantly add to the weight and size of a lens.

BTW, size and weight of many lens designs are largely determined by how "fast" it is, not so much by the image circle size it supports.

The GFX has a sensor that is 70% larger which, as the 645z proves, is a substantial increase over 36x24mm.

It is just a 66% increase.

As Zack Arias all "educated" us, even a 125% increase (from APS-C to FF) is "insignificant" and only people with problems care about such minute differences. Now an increase of 66% should justify leaving the well-cared for FF market for a new Fuji product? That does not make sense, does it?

To be clear, I'm not criticising you or your position. I'm just arguing that Fuji has same back-pedalling to do if they want to convince people that their camera has any IQ advantage of an A7RII, say (just to name another mirrorless).

Hopefully Ricoh has a true 645 coming in the near future with some improved glass. Maybe Ricoh can implement IBIS in the 645 line and add pixel shift. Ricoh needs to offer a full sized 645 sensor.

Yes, all very good points that would leave Fuji in the dust, AFAIC.

The GFX is 1.7x the size of the K-1 sensor and 3.9x the size of APS-C.

Sure, all your numbers are consistent with the ones I provided. I just used the more common crop factors (instead of size multipliers) and reciprocals to indicate the upgrade from a smaller sensor to a larger sensor.

---

Last edited by Class A; 09-25-2016 at 11:30 AM.

[mecrox]

@Photoptimist @surfar
I agree with the sentiment, but I doubt Ricoh at the factory grosses $1,190 a unit on an $1,800 retail camera. After the factory door price the Distributor (Ricoh Imaging Americas, for instance) takes a markup, then the Dealer takes a markup.

I'd estimate the factory price at closer to $900 a unit. From that they buy shutter, sensor, LCD, electronic components, stamped metal parts, the case and everything else. Then they pay people to assemble them . . .

When all is said and done I'd bet Ricoh nets an order of magnitude below $100,000,000.

Even so, what they'll want one presumes is a healthy margin and since they seem to be careful with the money tap and the overheads, one hopes they are getting it. In addition, the further they go with this game the more they can share the core tech around their family of products and enhance that margin, rather than having to reinvent the wheel each time. A virtuous circle if they can stick to picking winners.

[monochrome]

Even so, what they'll want one presumes is a healthy margin and since they seem to be careful with the money tap and the overheads, one hopes they are getting it. In addition, the further they go with this game the more they can share the core tech around their family of products and enhance that margin, rather than having to reinvent the wheel each time. A virtuous circle if they can stick to picking winners.

Absolutely correct. It seems to me Ricoh lives by the Rule of Compound Growth. IOW, growth at a manageable, but constant rate over a long period of time.

In the early periods, nominal growth looks negligible. In later periods, when the base revenue is a much larger number, nominal revenue growth is also very large. But the rate is constant.

[lukulele]

An inquiring non technical mind wants to know?
1. If Denver and employees are no longer, where is distribution in the US and is it wholly owned by Ricoh or a separate entity?
2.With all the moaning about AF doesn't Ricoh have some experience with copiers and engineers that might lend some expertise or creativity to the issue?

Thanks for any clarification since I primarily use F, A, and DA 15 lenses so I'm perennially slow.

[surfar]

Gross Losses

I wasnt aware Ricoh imaging had these ???

[monochrome]

I wasnt aware Ricoh imaging had these ???

To my knowledge, they don't. Rising Gross Sales does not necessarily imply rising Cash Flow. My original point, which I reiterate, is that 84,000 K-1 sales does not yield Ricoh Imaging $100,000,000 Cash Flow to invest in development, which remains correct.

[surfar]

$100,000,000 Cash Flow

Yes, i doubt that figure is relevant.However,the Grossing figure i posted is(if theres constant sales of whats produced).So, whatever net result is attained it contributes to further development(this takes into account the massive??? marketing??? costs!)

[Winder]

As soon as Pentax releases a digital 645 that does not have a crop sensor anymore then Fuji will be lagging behind again.

The 53.7 x 40.4 645 sensor that is used by Phase One is 3x the price. A Pentax 645 with that sensor is going to be +/- $16,000. The Phase One camera is $50,000. Yes, Ricoh needs to produce a 645 body with a larger sensor, but it will be very expensive. It won't be in the same market segment as the Fuji.

Fair point. But Fuji has still unnecessarily limited the potential of their camera by using a "small" mount.

No more than Ricoh has limited its potential by using K-mount. Its all relative. People said the same thing about X-mount since it is specific to APS-C, but Fuji has been very, very successful with the "limited" X-mount.

Now an increase of 66% should justify leaving the well-cared for FF market for a new Fuji product? That does not make sense, does it?

Who said they are after FF DSLR customers? Fuji is selling this to people looking to get into MF or people who are tired of paying 2-3x the price for Phase One and Hassy products. Two completely different markets. There will be current Fuji users who love mirrorless who will view the GFX as the perfect complement to their X-mount.

Fuji is going to sell a lot of these cameras.

[Rondec]

Wow, such a depressing thread!

In a year when Pentax finally comes out with a full frame camera and has a 15-30 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 in its stable of lenses, people are aggravated that there isn't more.

It is clear that Pentax is working on more. If, however, you are hoping that Pentax releases a camera with top end video or, releases a full frame mirrorless camera, my guess is that you are out of luck for quite awhile. I find the diatribes on auto focus to be unfortunate as well. Pentax auto focus is quite serviceable and the K-1 works well for everything but sports.

As to new lenses and neglecting APS-C, it is clear that Pentax is working on new lenses and that those lenses will be usable on APS-C. Will they be a little bigger? Probably, but lets be clear that the main reason why the DA limiteds are so small is because they have relatively slow apertures. Pentax is going to release primes for full frame that have wider apertures and therefore they will be bigger, regardless of whether Pentax made the short sighted decision to cover only APS-C or to cover 35mm as well.

As to Fujifilm's decision to release medium format, it will probably do fairly well in a very small market, but odds are Pentax has under development a more advanced medium format sensor that they will release next year. There is always something new coming out and by the time Fuji's cameras actually hit the market, I am afraid they will be old news.

In the end, Ricoh has been clear that they will only give out information about products that are very close to launch. They made exceptions with the DFA 70-200 and the K-1, but otherwise, by the time there is a product announcement, there is a product soon to follow. This may be wise, as if you announce a product too far in advance then other brands can figure out how to prevent their own users from leaving.

[monochrome]

Yes, i doubt that figure is relevant.However,the Grossing figure i posted is(if theres constant sales of whats produced).So, whatever net result is attained it contributes to further development(this takes into account the massive??? marketing??? costs!)

I agree with that, of course. Let's suppose Ricoh Imaging Japan clears $200 / unit x 84,000 units a year (for three years). They're not building inventory, rather they're selling into order flow, so there is no inventory investment. That means - at least for now - the K-1 yields about $16,800,000 Cash Flow per year for product development.

On a cost accounting basis there may be charges against that cash flow to retire P&E expense, R&D expense, Warranty Reserve and other accounting expenses, but the cash flow is still there.

[Tan68]

Yes, a K-5 comes loaded with full frame of APS-C
Why should the K1 be marketed as only full frame when it is over 2x more full than previous Pentax digital SLRs. K1 is closer to K-5^2/11
Marketing people missing a boat somewhere.

Does that mean that my APS-C camera is suddenly full frame because it covers the full area of APS-C film? Or would APS-H be the full frame one since -C was a crop of that.

So all of my DA lenses would have a 0.9 crop factor from APS-H...

Does anyone even remember APS film?

I'd say it's all become a bunch of nonsense, but I think it's been that way at least since Leitz started shooting on movie film...

-Eric

[Uluru]

But the rate is constant.

That would be a nice thing, though, but who can say that is really happening?