[surfar]

it's probably bringing in $100 million a year which is surely enough to keep an engineering time working on the next camera(s) and lenses.

In a full production year approx. U$ 150 mill gross and surely that can sprout a few more lenses!

[monochrome]

@Photoptimist @surfar

In that kind of world, a smaller company can do fine even if they never try to crush competition, launch "game changers" (a notion that really doesn't exist), or try to be everything to everyone. The K-1 looks like a great success for Ricoh. At 7,000 units a month, it's probably bringing in $100 million a year which is surely enough to keep an engineering time working on the next camera(s) and lenses.

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.

[surfar]

It doesn't matter what the profit is....The gross sales will fund more development, be patient...they built the camera...customers will come!!

[Class A]

The 135mm format was created by taking 70mm film and cutting it in half. That has nothing to do with the lens mount.

I know the story behind the 135 format and actually you could just as well call it "double frame". The 36mmx24mm image size is not the result of taking 70mm and cutting it in half. Cutting 70mm film in half gives you 35mm film. The latter has an image size of 24mmx18mm. Only if you combine two 35mm frames you get the 36mmx24mm format we are talking about. Hence, you could call it "double frame", if you like.

However, I think referencing an original ancestor film medium size (no matter which way you cut it; "half" or "double") is not helpful at all. Such historic references miss the point that 36mmx24mm is a standard size for still images and if you use a camera whose mount diameter and registration distance are designed to support that standard, however only a portion of that standard size is covered by the imager then you are dealing with a "crop" imager.

To me, the most reasonable interpretation of "full-frame" is that the imager is not cropping, it captures the "full-frame".

Note that the term is "full-frame", not "full-format". It does not make reference to the size of a medium, it refers to the fact that a camera is able to capture all of the frame.

Then you have to apply the same logic to the Fuji GFX since it has a sensor that is designed for specifically for the GFX mount.

Since the 36x24 format was the most common and popular format to receive a cropping treatment, the term "full-frame" is often used synonymously with the 36x24 format. Other uses of "full-frame" are much rarer, but logically it makes sense to refer to any sensor that is not cropping as a "full-frame" sensor, independently of the actual format size.

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.

So relative to the mount, the Fuji GFX has a full frame sensor. The 645z has a cropped sensor relative to what the mount is designed for, so that means the same sensor would be a crop in one mount, but a full format in the other mount.

Yes, exactly.

Sensors (or film sizes) are not "cropping" or "non-cropping" per-se. It depends in which camera you use them in. Either they waste light or they don't.

[biz-engineer]

Nothing new for Pentax at Photokina, but new is Fuji MF. Well, Ricoh could have announced and released the 645Z for a second time in 2016 Photokina. Fuji comes up with the same Sony 51Mp sensor two years after Pentax , and Pentaxians are excited about it. On top of that, the 645z has better specs than both Hasselblad X1D and Fuji GFX, and the 645z is cheaper. I guess I understand that Canikon and Fuji are excited if they don't know that digital MF was invented well before Fuji even thought about it. Looks like every company must announce a new product at every exhibition, it's going to be a lot of camera models to chose from out there, basically, two new camera models per year for each product line, that is a lot more than you can buy. And it's so laughable Fuji hammering on youtube video that no one need a FF camera because Fuji X is as good as and it is used in studio by pro photographers (pro photog who don't say how much money he get from Fuji marcom to make a video for sell Fuji stuff), and now are so excited MF that costs 10 times more, just wondering who fools who.

[Zygonyx]

Fuji have been very naïve to announce there complete GF MF line with aroud 6 to 9 month anticipation before actual lauch....

Different people, different communication....

But when it comes around, Pentax would be wise to get the right inflection for 645 : bigger sensor, more compact body (even with big prism) and new DFA lenses...

[ffking]

What kills companies is the mismatch between upfront spending and future sales and profits. And it's often the bigger companies that have done too much upfront spending in order to dominate markets with volume. It's the companies with too many mouths to feed, too many product lines to keep afloat, and too many big factories to pay off that fail.

A company can survive a dwindling market and intense competition as long as it makes ends meet. We'd all love Ricoh to spend big on new marketing, new lenses, new cameras, bribing retailers, etc. But that's the path to almost certain death.

We talk about cell phones killing the P&S market but that's really just hyperbole. P&S still exists even if it's at a much lower volume. And it offers features cellphones don't (and probably never will) such as better photographic ergonomics, larger sensors, smaller bodies, optical zoom, super-rugged waterproofing, etc.

What interesting isn't how cellphones have replaced dedicated cameras but the fact that the number of different types of dedicated cameras continues to rise with new categories exemplified by the Theta, GoPro, Instax, and various Kickstarter camera ideas. You can buy all of these new kinds of cameras and all of the old kinds of cameras. Heck, you can still by new large format film cameras.

That's really where the photographic world is headed -- lots of different kinds of cameras, most sold in modest volumes.

In that kind of world, a smaller company can do fine even if they never try to crush competition, launch "game changers" (a notion that really doesn't exist), or try to be everything to everyone. The K-1 looks like a great success for Ricoh. At 7,000 units a month, it's probably bringing in $100 million a year which is surely enough to keep an engineering time working on the next camera(s) and lenses.

wise words - as always

[Kunzite]

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.

This is Fujifilm we're talking about, so they did exactly that*. They can always hire some photographers to explain how you'd never need a larger sensor

* No official information, but looking at the product images I see no provisioning for a larger sensor.

[Zygonyx]

And so will they, because they succesfully joined once more the MIRRORLESS CROWD

[Mistral75]

(...). I guess I understand that Canikon and Fuji are excited if they don't know that digital MF was invented well before Fuji even thought about it. (...)

You know Fujifilm are the designer of Hasselblad earlier H cameras (H1, H2 and H3) and all Hasselblad HC and HCD lenses, don't you?

---------- Post added 09-25-2016 at 12:42 PM ----------

(...)

Is there a general opinion on who he hinted as the graveyard-candidates?

Nikon are clearly hinted at.

They fit under" a long-time companion (...) a rival" and they presented three action cams, and nothing but three action cams, at Photokina.

[Uluru]

This is Fujifilm we're talking about, so they did exactly that*. They can always hire some photographers to explain how you'd never need a larger sensor

Did Jim Malcolm move to Fujifilm? He used to say the same for Pentax when he came to Ricoh Imaging USA. Visionary guy.

[biz-engineer]

You know Fujifilm are the designer of Hasselblad earlier H cameras (H1, H2 and H3) and all Hasselblad HC and HCD lenses, don't you?

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.

[Mistral75]

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." (...)

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia .

[monochrome]

It doesn't matter what the profit is....The gross sales will fund more development, be patient...they built the camera...customers will come!!

??? You don't fund development with Gross Losses. You fund development with plow back from revenues in excess of costs. At the parent company level Gross Sales is not $1,799 X 84,000 / year. Revenues in excess of costs is nowhere near what you think it is. Maybe as little as a tenth of what you think it is.

[Kunzite]

Did Jim Malcolm move to Fujifilm? He used to say the same for Pentax when he came to Ricoh Imaging USA. Visionary guy.

FAIL. Again.
You cannot compare Fujifilm's aggressive "APS-C is the optimal choice, period" approach with Pentax' "we don't have FF... for now". You cannot compare some comment Jim Malcolm made - was it the one that many Pentaxians are happy with APS-C? - with persistent claims that the difference between APS-C and FF is negligible.

Second, when Jim Malcolm started working at Ricoh Imaging, the 645D was already two years old - Ricoh Imaging had a larger sensor Pentax camera.

Third, Jim Malcolm no longer works at Ricoh Imaging, so he's no longer your enemy. Let him be.