[Rondec]

I tend to disagree with the whole assessment. Crop cameras tend to sell more just based on pricing. But as the price of full frame comes down it will squeeze crop cameras. I have no idea about mirrorless versus SLR, but it feels like if Fuji is selling their cameras for the same as a full frame NEX and the size is pretty close, but the NEX has better performance in every respect and is priced the same or cheaper, unless you are chasing a retro feel, why would you pick the Fuji.

Crop cameras will always be there, but I feel as though they are going to be squeezed pretty hard and more so in the future as more companies come out with mirrorless full frame cameras.

[surfar]

why would you pick the Fuji.

Have you ever used one or owned one?.....maybe then you will know Why!

[reh321]

Not to mention that while we go on about low light and ISO performance, a huge chunk of the market even at these price points is going to turn to the one equalizing device: the flash.

I doubt that very much. In the days of film, when I used Kodachrome 25, I was heavily dependent on my flash, and constantly frustrated by museums and other venues too large for me to light up with my two Vivitar 285's; periodically I would re-visit the question of synchronizing multiple flashes, using nothing other than what was in my bag. Each generation of digital cameras has provided better higher-ISO performance, and each time I take a step up in in ISO performance I use a flash less and less {and the only flash I carry with me today is quite petite}. From what I am seeing, the K-70 and KP are Pentax's contribution to a world where flash is used only as fill.

[monochrome]

.@reh321 My KP ISO performance is so good that - accustomed as I am to a dozen years of Pentax APSc dSLR's - I must take great care to lower my usual ISO setting or I blow all the highlights. I typically want to shoot between f/5.6 and f/8 and faster than 1/125, adjusting ISO to compensate. An outdoor shot that I would typically judge to need ISO 800 - or 1/4 fill flash at ISO 400 - in P Mode (HyperP) @ f/5.6 starts at 1/1000 and still blows higlights. Indoor shots in natural window light are bright @ ISO 3200 with no flash shadow - and virtually no artefacts or color noise in shadows.

K-1 does not suffer from this performance 'malady'.

[Fcsnt54]

Not to mention that while we go on about low light and ISO performance, a huge chunk of the market even at these price points is going to turn to the one equalizing device: the flash.

One benefit for some of the Olympus m43 cameras beside image quality is that they also give you a small flash that you can remove from the camera if you so choose. At least in that case it makes up for the average amount of people who want better pictures then their phones, but do not want to bring a behemoth camera with them. As much as people do not want to admit it and claim physics for properties of camera size and image quality/size of prints or what ever, Ill raise them one better and say science and technological advancements allow for smaller cameras to have just as good or even better in some cases image quality than a full frame. Just take a look at how far m43 and apsc cameras have come, even you can count full frame in rivaling quality of Digital medium format cameras. Yes there are other principles at play, but you can not over look how small the gap is getting.

[Aristophanes]

One benefit for some of the Olympus m43 cameras beside image quality is that they also give you a small flash that you can remove from the camera if you so choose. At least in that case it makes up for the average amount of people who want better pictures then their phones, but do not want to bring a behemoth camera with them. As much as people do not want to admit it and claim physics for properties of camera size and image quality/size of prints or what ever, Ill raise them one better and say science and technological advancements allow for smaller cameras to have just as good or even better in some cases image quality than a full frame. Just take a look at how far m43 and apsc cameras have come, even you can count full frame in rivaling quality of Digital medium format cameras. Yes there are other principles at play, but you can not over look how small the gap is getting.

not only;y that, it's a tilt and swivel flash that runs off the camera battery. And Panasonic has identical models. Fuji has similar.

[wjjstu]

The situation that you describe is correct in the way that the camera market goes back to were it was 15 years ago, but there will likely still be a market for high-end cameras (looks like Nikon making a D850 and Fuji making of GFX...), what's new however is that high end cameras are now way more complex than they used to be , and the R&D budget is, I suppose, way higher than it used to be 15 years ago, which means that once companies able to grab enough of the smaller market (market share) can make a profit. Classic management often says that a company should grab as much market share as it can when the market is growing in order to be able to survive when the market slows down, while other companies not having collected enough market share during the growing part of the cycle cannot survive when the market comes to maturity. As per classic management theory, Canon and Nikon should survive and all others should die. However, theory is theory, look at Nokia, they used to dominate the mobile phone market, not anymore, according to theory Nokia should be the only survivor.

Pentax is lacking in more than market share at the moment... From personal observations over the past 2-3 years I've seen their shelf share has diminish drastically, disappearing from some major retailers entirely. The meager amounts of advertising I used to see? Gone. Formerly in-house repairs now outsourced. The only mind share left is from the people who grew up in the 60s or 70s. Even Ricoh's prized GR has been left to wither and die. In light of that I think Pentax's position is a lot worse than some of the other "niche" players currently in the mirrorless space like Fuji. Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, all have multiple legs up on Pentax.

Lets replace "camera market" by "the market of image making", there could be a new trend on how to take photos, Canon could be out, and some other players could be in. Guess what Leica talking about making their own smartphone. Guess what, Ricoh Imaging making and developing the 360° system. So, it's kind of a moment of redefinition of the imaging market, and no one know what will come out of it, so there is no point to worry, the only thing we can do is to use what's available now. In the future, the tools may be different, we will buy something else then.

Uh huh. If not enough people are buying the APS and FF DSLR's for it to be self-sustaining, would Theta sales be enough to prop up the former? Why would the company do it? The only thing keeping the K-mount alive at that point would be ego.

---------- Post added 08-14-2017 at 09:37 PM ----------

I tend to disagree with the whole assessment. Crop cameras tend to sell more just based on pricing. But as the price of full frame comes down it will squeeze crop cameras. I have no idea about mirrorless versus SLR, but it feels like if Fuji is selling their cameras for the same as a full frame NEX and the size is pretty close, but the NEX has better performance in every respect and is priced the same or cheaper, unless you are chasing a retro feel, why would you pick the Fuji.

Crop cameras will always be there, but I feel as though they are going to be squeezed pretty hard and more so in the future as more companies come out with mirrorless full frame cameras.

I doubt it. I see it all the time in different enthusiast forums where people develop distorted views like this.

$2000 won't be squeezing them out because most people won't drop $2000 on a camera.

Very few people print 20x30 so talking about better 20x30 prints at full frame against smaller sensors is irrelevant to the overwhelming majority.

FF sensor has 1-2 stops more ISO performance? Slightly less depth of field? Find somebody who cares!

While you and a handful of people around here might care about such things, it's not enough for Pentax to build a sustainable business around.

[monochrome]

Pentax is lacking in more than market share at the moment... From personal observations over the past 2-3 years I've seen their shelf share has diminish drastically, disappearing from some major retailers entirely. The meager amounts of advertising I used to see? Gone. Formerly in-house repairs now outsourced. The only mind share left is from the people who grew up in the 60s or 70s. Even Ricoh's prized GR has been left to wither and die. In light of that I think Pentax's position is a lot worse than some of the other "niche" players currently in the mirrorless space like Fuji. Olympus, Sony, Panasonic, all have multiple legs up on Pentax.



Uh huh. If not enough people are buying the APS and FF DSLR's for it to be self-sustaining, would Theta sales be enough to prop up the former? Why would the company do it? The only thing keeping the K-mount alive at that point would be ego.

---------- Post added 08-14-2017 at 09:37 PM ----------



I doubt it. I see it all the time in different enthusiast forums where people develop distorted views like this.

$2000 won't be squeezing them out because most people won't drop $2000 on a camera.

Very few people print 20x30 so talking about better 20x30 prints at full frame against smaller sensors is irrelevant to the overwhelming majority.

FF sensor has 1-2 stops more ISO performance? Slightly less depth of field? Find somebody who cares!

While you and a handful of people around here might care about such things, it's not enough for Pentax to build a sustainable business around.

I'd love to know the sources for everything you seem to know.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

What?
The Pentax 70-200/2.8 is ~US$1,800
Filter Thread Front:77 mm
Dimensions (DxL) ~3.60 x 7.99" (91.5 x 203 mm)
Weight 3.86 lb (1755 g)
The Olympus 40-150/2.8 is ~US$1,400 (and goes on sale for $200 less)
Filter Thread Front: 72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) ~3.13 x 6.30" (79.4 x 160.0 mm)
Weight 1.67 lb (760 g)

If you want the same performance as the K1 along with the 70-200 F2.8 the closest you can get is the
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm 1:2.0 and even then its still only puts almost half of the light into the image and costing and weigh in around the pentax 70-200 F2.8
So nothing is saved going small and you are penalized for going with a smaller system the lens cost about the same but you get less. I want the same performance
as the 40-150 F2.8 it would not be hard for pentax to build one for the same price or better and weigh in at the same or better. take the FA 80-320 F4.5-5.6, Its will put the same amount of light into the image at 300mm and below 200 it does even better. Heck it comes in at 110g below the weight of the Olympus


As you have shown above if you select a lens that cannot put as much light into the image then yes its going to be cheaper.

---------- Post added 08-14-2017 at 11:13 PM ----------

I guess five stop of dynamic range is the difference in dynamic range between, say, iso 100 and iso 3200? That's probably accurate. I would say, that DXO Mark actually overstates the amount of dynamic range available for sensors. If they say 14 EV, you may be able to 11.5 -- just because you can push the shadows hard doesn't mean that they will look good.

They don't overstate the DR, what they have done is determined a acceptable level for a noise floor and base how many stops they can push to that floor. This does not help most photographers as what they have determined as an acceptable level of noise depends on how you are going to view the final image ( size) with DXO that's 8mp and their noise floor is below what many would find acceptable.

There is also some confusion with regard to lets say a camera that has 12 stops verses 0ne with 9 stops. Many people will say well all I ever use is 3 stop's so that's all we need so 9 stops will cover it. What they don't understand that if we base our needs of DR with how noise will look and show up in the final image it will very greatly to the scored DR at DXO. Lets use for example I find that the noise found in the shadows when push to iso 1600 ( noise that looks like 33dB) as my limit for the K1. We will wind up with 4 stops of headroom for pushing the shadows with the K1.

If we carry over the same noise floor of 33dB to the smaller format you will see that you are limited to only 2 stops of shadow pushing
Pentax K-1 vs Olympus OM-D E-M10

Also if you look at how the noise starts to appear when the shadows are lifted between the 2 different formats you will see another trend. With the K1 you can lift the shadow 2 full stops (to iso 400) and your shadow noise will appear no worse than the image captured from the smaller 4/3rds at base iso of 100 without any pushing. I don't know about most but this is a big deal to me as regularly push 1-2 stops on a regular bases. This is where we start to see the major advantage that cannot be derived from the single figure provide by DXO, you always have to consider how noise appears

[Rondec]

Have you ever used one or owned one?.....maybe then you will know Why!

The most I have done is fiddle with one in a store. I don't connect with the interface at all -- too used to current Pentax design and I never used film cameras with that style of design, so it doesn't give me warm fuzzies about the past when I handle it either.

It's like anything else -- there's no arguing over taste. Fuji puts out good images and has great glass, I just don't like their interface.

[Nicolas06]

If you want the same performance as the K1 along with the 70-200 F2.8 the closest you can get is the
Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 35-100mm 1:2.0 and even then its still only puts almost half of the light into the image and costing and weigh in around the pentax 70-200 F2.8

People do not care. They care if performance is good enough for them. If they think they need K1 + 70-200 f/2.8, likely they'd even want more, a faster prime, a camera that perform even better and maybe they spend a lot in gear.

But many people are satisfied with smaller lighter alternatives that are often cheaper and that with the progress of technology become good enough for more and more people.

After all most people now use their phone that as replaced the FF film camera as good enough. And out of the remaining people, the FF market is quite small. People still buy much more APSC DSLR, m4/3 bodies or Sony E mount cameras than FF capable cameras.

The thing is 70-200 f/2.8 + FF from 5 years ago, I can now get the same with latest FF and 70-200 f/4 or APSC + 70-200 f/2.8 and get more reach or 50-135 f/2.8 and get smaller lens.

70-200 f/2.8 on latest FF still better but even in Pentax with KP being the best camera of the brand for now in term of AF responsiveness, AF coverage in the viewfinder and more advenced high iso treatment, the advantage of K1 are still there but less meaningfull than it could be. And it is not only KP, A6300/A6500 bodies of Sony tend to be near the performance of their A7-A7-II for low light and better on everything else.

FF may replace APSC entirely but for this to convince every body would have to come with light compact lenses to go with it that will not be 70-200 f/2.8 but more a light and small 70-200 f/4-5.6...

The people that agree to go around with a 70-200 f/2.8, in particular the Pentax version that is extremely heavy are not that many. Would you give it to them for free that they'll not use it.

[Nicolas06]

I tend to disagree with the whole assessment. Crop cameras tend to sell more just based on pricing. But as the price of full frame comes down it will squeeze crop cameras. I have no idea about mirrorless versus SLR, but it feels like if Fuji is selling their cameras for the same as a full frame NEX and the size is pretty close, but the NEX has better performance in every respect and is priced the same or cheaper, unless you are chasing a retro feel, why would you pick the Fuji.

Crop cameras will always be there, but I feel as though they are going to be squeezed pretty hard and more so in the future as more companies come out with mirrorless full frame cameras.

Fuji differentiator is that they actually have small, light, fast, not so expensive lenses that match very well the body and that their XT20 provide the same features as XT2/XPro2 for the price of a K3-II in a much more compact design.

They also provide "retro", and jpegs that people love.

Honestly if the choice if K1 or XT2, I'll choose the Fuji. Toward sony. Well the camera prices are similar Sony having more issues with ergonomics and Fuji being more basic for AF. But the lenses to pair with the camera are 10 time better in Fuji world.

[Kunzite]

People do not care.

"People" are not a single organism, capable of making a single choice. We shouldn't try to identify a single direction, nor even to be fixed in what "the majority" would do... as for sure, camera makers can't survive with a single line/tier of products. Not even Leica.
So it doesn't matter if "many" are going for "smaller lighter alternatives", the "larger" alternatives are still required. And, if played right, they could make people figure out that Pentax has something Olympus and Fuji don't have.

You'd choose the Fuji, I chose (bought) the Pentax. As said on another thread, the K-1 was selling equally to Pentaxians, as to new customers; this strategy is working. It makes no sense to imagine that it was bad, that confining themselves in a similar matter to some other brands would be "better". But the K-1 is only part of Ricoh Imaging's strategy with Pentax - cameras like the KP and the 55-300 RE are another.
Too bad they lack on execution speed. And too bad that Fuji's userbase is hyping up their brand, while Pentax' users (and ex-users) are bashing it.

By the way, how did we get to praising m4/3 and Fuji on a thread about Ricoh's financial results?

[biz-engineer]

Honestly if the choice if K1 or XT2, I'll choose the Fuji.

For travel with wide-to short tele range, yes, no question.

[Nicolas06]

If so, why do people throw out more than 500 bucks for a smartphone? (most of those "normal" people do that once a year)

Statiscticsn show that outside US, people spend more about $250 for a phone: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283334/global-average-selling-price-smartphones/

They also get a new one every 30months on average, so 2.5 years, not every year: People are taking longer to upgrade their smartphones

So basically the norm is to spend 4 time less than you said on phones.

In general we all tend to assume people spend a lot on thing and change them much more often than they do.

When I changed my TV not long ago I participated a bit to a forum and write a few posts. For people there, it was quite unlikely for somebody to keep a TV more than 5 years and you'd start to have decent TV at 800-1200€ while many where look at TV in the 1500-3000€ range. I checked the official stats, people tend to have several TV at home and to buy a new one every 8 years. Because they have 2, they are more keeping a given device 15 years than 5 years. The average price spend on TV tend was €350 but recently dropped to €250, the analist thinking this sudden drop was to be compatible with the latest norm of TV in europe to be able to continue receiving public TV channels.

Commercials, manufacturers and brand would like us to think we shall all spend lot of money on everything and that this is normal, Ideally if necessary you'd work more and all to pay for this rather than just enjoying life with a bit more basic thing or keeping it longer that basically does exactly the same. Their interrest is obvious. Doesn't mean that most people actually do that. And of course in gear related forum, people tend to be more interreted in gear and to change more often... After all I have been to that forum and end up with an 55" oled screen that isn't exactly near the $250-350 price range.

Out of all the persons I know, the only one that changed phone in a 1 year time frame did it because the previous one stopped working because he destroyed it by accident. I am also the guy with the most expensive TV and that spent the most on a camera.

If you ask, we are mostly software engineer in the 25-45 year old range, quite wealthy, tend to go at least once a year to visit a foreign country on the other side or earth and most already brought their home, even if course the mortage isn't finished. We are not especially poor or whatever.