[Nicolas06]

The low end is disappearing, so there is no "grow". The low end has evaporated to smartphones who do with software what the low end did with optics and unfriendly interfaces. The floor of discrete camera product productions costs cannot match that at all. A smartphone can dedicate maybe $40 to consumer friendly cost while the minimum buy-in for a dedicated camera could be $200, and that is with communication and integration issues, software editing capacity, etc. There are no inexpensive optical products that can match a smartphone and most apps. Even Lensbaby is costly, and they creatively wreck IQ.

Explain me why the #1 sale for compact camera is €100 then and the entry level start at €30 on amazon if you can't do anything bellow $200 ?

While it is true that a $500-1000 phone is maybe equivalent to the $50-100 compact still lacking any zooming capability, the entry level phone are quite terrible too.

All optical camera makers are forced to go high end.

Most the sales in optics are for smartphones and embedded devices. That where the growth is. For sensors too. I would say yes that basically Pentax do it as well as Fuji and Sony. Clearly. And Sigma and tamron too even through they don't sell cameras.

But Canon and Nikon didn't change their overall line they still target very low end to very high end. Funily they own most of the market together so "all" doesn't look like more like "few". The top 3 reflex cameras on Amazon right now are the 750D, D3400 and D3200. Not the D5 or even D500.

The reality is that if I want to buy a camera, everywhere I have the entry mid level of Canon and Nikon and some cheap compact cameras. I even get maybe a RX100 or A Sony A5000/6000. In fewer place I see A7 / A7-II or some entry level FF. In some specialized shop only do I find the truely high end like a D5, A9. Fuji is not so present, Pentax has at best a K50/KS2/K3. I never seen a K1. You also get some m4/3. The EM10-II and the olympus pen are often displayed. Not the OM1-II.

If I want to buy an highend camera, especially if it isn't Canikon, this goes online.

But look at their dependence problem. They rely on their user base to do lens correction in post, through third party, costly software, like Adobe. Without lens correction, their output is near useless in RAW on the growing dominant mobile OS devices, or even using the base Photos software on a Mac. Buying a camera should not mean buying an Adobe subscription just to use a lens. And lenses are the core of these companies. Their optics and the laws of physics are what differentiate them from the app/sensor dynamic. Are people going to buy $1,000 cameras to pop JPEGs?

Maybe true 10 years ago. All camera do have jpeg with all sort of optical corrections bundled in and you can tweak the rendering to your taste.

This is also clearly because they are how to say ? So old schools and can't get their act together. They could all team up to get 100% open source software that work very well for all sort of cameras. Investing all together wouldn't be that much and this way they could ensure that the latest feature is always fully supported and everybody has access to it on whatever device. They didn't even try.

[Nicolas06]

We're talking about yen here, so shouldn't you use the inflation in Japan?[
More important than the inflation, is the evolution of the cameras' prices. For example, the 6D was launched for $2100, and that was in 2012; its replacement was launched for $1999. Despite the inflation.
Maybe camera makers are forced to target higher end just to keep the value of their products?

I did target Japan inflation too but the camera are sold worldwide. For me otherwise if the price drop, this not going higher end, this go lower end and margin drop, even more so if the product has to be more advanced.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... that only mirrorless makers should target higher value cameras? DSLR makers would be stupid to do the same? Don't forget, they have much better data than we do... can we really teach them lessons?

I don't teach them lessons even through it obvious that except Canon and Sony they tend to have big issues. Like any worker I also know how the corporate world works. People are more interrested in internal politics than the overall company state. As long as the individual keep its job and can get a bonus or beeing promoted, he doesn't care. I also know that in a company like Pentax with a declining market, workers are also thinking more how to keep their job, find a new job or convincing their boss they shouldn't be the one to be fired than to make outstanding products.

But my point is not there, my point is at all the people that endlessly say they must go all high end blablabla. They say that because it sound good to them and for many they are enthousiasts that like shiny high end products, even if they don't buy at least to dream. My point is that Pentax tried this strategy already for the 3 past years and it worked mostly 6 months to 1 years when K1 was introduced. Now that the fans got it, there no more sales. Other players did compete in highend too and some were sucessfull, most noticqbly Sony because they offered something that nobody else was offering except Leica (and the price isn't the same).

The whole go highend blindlessly like it can only work doesn't make sense. Company go banrupt everyday trying to do just that. Highend isn't easier than low end.

[Kunzite]

I'm talking about stuff like saying "this is stupid". Well, would we actually know if it is, especially before the fact? Do we really understand what they're doing? Is anyone actually saying they should go high-end blindlessly?
The Pentax K-1 was not a blind move; and it worked. The new lenses? They're selling, to some extent - I think they're working too. What's to complain about?

[surfar]

What's to complain about?

Only the slowness!

[Aristophanes]

I do zero lens correction - I choose to leave that completely to my Pentax cameras.

Not with RAW. Only with JPEG. The moment you load RAW into your PC you need the PC software to handle the lens corrections.

[biz-engineer]

With 10% more than the 800€ of a K5 back it time, I doesn't get a 2000€ K1.

The price of 36Mpixels full frame camera decreased by more than 30% in 10 years.

[reh321]

Not with RAW. Only with JPEG. The moment you load RAW into your PC you need the PC software to handle the lens corrections.

In the days of film I used Kodachrome. I shot the picture, then turned developing over to expert automation. I do exactly the same thing today - I have no reason to spend any more time at a computer, and I find Pentax to do an excellent job of delivering the image I pictured in my mind when I pressed the shutter - so the only reason I load raw into my computer is for reasons of archiving.

[biz-engineer]

Explain me why the #1 sale for compact camera is €100 then and the entry level start at €30 on amazon if you can't do anything bellow $200 ?

The explanation is "The sardine that choked the port of Marseille" :-)

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

People do not care. They care if performance is good enough for them.

This is my point, what is good enough and why I use a 70-200F4 on my FF its good enough, and going with the smaller format I would windup pay more for that good enough lens with very little to not no weight difference.

[Nicolas06]

This is my point, what is good enough and why I use a 70-200F4 on my FF its good enough, and going with the smaller format I would windup pay more for that good enough lens with very little to not no weight difference.

Quite possibly and you can't do that on Pentax. There no 70-200 f/4 and like there will be not one for quite a long time.

[Nicolas06]

In the days of film I used Kodachrome. I shot the picture, then turned developing over to expert automation. I do exactly the same thing today - I have no reason to spend any more time at a computer, and I find Pentax to do an excellent job of delivering the image I pictured in my mind when I pressed the shutter - so the only reason I load raw into my computer is for reasons of archiving.

If you never do anything else than using the Jpeg, having the raw for archiving is a complete waste of great disk pace and time. In 20-50 years, the jpeg will read just fine... As to having raw editing software optimized to handle camera that will be seen as prehistoric by that time on your computer seems doubtful.

Honestly I don't get it.

[Nicolas06]

The price of 36Mpixels full frame camera decreased by more than 30% in 10 years.

10 years ago that was maybe some MF body asking for like 20 thousand; Then we go D800 a few year later like 3 time less expensive and now A7R is half that price. So I'd say it not 30% cheaper but more like 6 time cheaper.

Current APSC bodies are better at high iso than the best FF of 10 years ago and similar to FF Canon bodies of 5 years ago.

Entry level price for FF gone from like 3000-4000€ to 999€ and the 999€ body offer better picture quality, better high iso, better AF. It is twice lighter and smaller.

What Sony will bring to you in a few year for €999 ? Current A9 performance with now a wide variety of Tamron/Sigma lenses and a wideness array of lenses of the brand, in particular more affordable one... ? Even better than that ?

I get Leica that may still ask stupidly high prices for their product to millionnaires. But will all the other brand that "must go high" end will able to do that? Ask 10 time the price for product of quite average performance? Can their R&D follow is their sale volume is so low or will they be limited to mostly embed standard components a bit like Pentax is doing today ? But still ask for much more... Just because why not ?

Are all the fan of the brands really ready to spend that much money and be ridiculized in actual result by much cheaper offering from Sony or Canon? Do we really all want to get our brands transformed into Leica clones but without the same level of recognition ?

[biz-engineer]

Entry level price for FF gone from like 3000-4000€ to 999€ and the 999€ body offer better picture quality, better high iso, better AF. It is twice lighter and smaller.

So it is the opposite of what you earlier wrote. Camera companies are making higher end products more affordable, it is good for the consumer.

[BigMackCam]

In 20-50 years, the jpeg will read just fine... As to having raw editing software optimized to handle camera that will be seen as prehistoric by that time on your computer seems doubtful.

I've heard that argument before, and - with respect - I just don't buy it. There is such a proliferation of RAW file use (camera specific, or Adobe DNG) both professionally and in the amateur community that RAW files from major manufacturers will be readable for just as long as JPEG. We're not talking about physical storage devices and media, here... just file formats. I come from a long technology background, and I can still find utilities to read proprietary-format files previously stored on tape drives from the 1970s. So it will be with RAW files (and any other standard you care to mention), whatever their specific format. Now, Compact Flash and SD cards? Possibly / probably not...

[Qwntm]

I've heard that argument before, and - with respect - I just don't buy it. There is such a proliferation of RAW file use (camera specific, or Adobe DNG) both professionally and in the amateur community that RAW files from major manufacturers will be readable for just as long as JPEG. We're not talking about physical storage devices and media, here... just file formats. I come from a long technology background, and I can still find utilities to read proprietary-format files previously stored on tape drives from the 1970s. So it will be with RAW files (and any other standard you care to mention), whatever their specific format. Now, Compact Flash and SD cards? Possibly / probably not...

And lets not forget that Pentax offers DNG raw as an option as well. As Adobe is the processing standard, that's virtually as "future proof" as it can get.