[reh321]

Since a K-70 body costs about $800 CAD, a KP body about $1200 CAD, and a K-1ii body costs about $2500 CAD, I would expect to pay in about the $1500 ball-park (all before taxes).

But looking at that McBain site, the Nikon D500 has 4k video, and the same AF module from the pro D5, with two CPUs on the mainboard IIRC. A mature product now and no longer at launch price, it still costs $2700, albeit on sale at the moment for $2400.

So a D500 costs as much as a K-1ii??

[clackers]

So a D500 costs as much as a K-1ii??

Yep, the problem with the flagship technology in one sensor format is that it will end up costing as much as entry or mid-level of the bigger format.

If I had $4000 squirrelled away, rather than the Sony A9, I'd eat wafers and peanut butter until I could get a Pentax 645Z for five. But that's me.

Olympus fans are finding out that for the little m43 sensor, the new E1MX weighs nearly as much as a K-1 and will cost around $3000. The whole 'mirrorless is cheaper, simpler and smaller' schtick is very selective, it would seem.

Just on pricing alone, very few units of these things will actually be purchased, that's not a comment about their quality.

[FozzFoster]

And you may be real happy with that.

Yep.

If I wanted a Nikon, I'd go with Nikon. I would not hope that Pentax becomes Nikon.

[reh321]

Yep, the problem with the flagship technology in one sensor format is that it will end up costing as much as entry or mid-level of the bigger format.

If I had $4000 squirrelled away, rather than the Sony A9, I'd eat wafers and peanut butter until I could get a Pentax 645Z for five. But that's me.

Considering Pentax's "field camera" orientation, I don't expect them to make the effort necessary to challenge Nikon's AF supremacy, nor do I expect them to put enough into a crop sensor body to "challenge" the K-1ii {so, personally, I would expect the price to be at least a couple hundred dollars below the K-1ii price}. However, releasing this DA* lens shows that they are still thinking in terms of APS quality.

---

Last edited by reh321; 02-05-2019 at 04:43 PM.

[clackers]

Yep.

If I wanted a Nikon, I'd go with Nikon. I would not hope that Pentax becomes Nikon.

Amen.

A 'me too' strategy, just wanting to become a Nikon or a Canon, makes no sense. There's already a Nikon and a Canon, and they're having to cope with a shrinking market (50%, according to a panicky or PR-smart, whichever you want to believe, Canon exec).

[clackers]

Considering Pentax's "field camera" orientation, I don't expect them to make the effort necessary to challenge Nikon's AF supremacy, nor do I expect them to put enough into a crop sensor body to "challenge" the K-1ii {so.personally, I would expect the price to be at least a couple hundred dollars below the K-1ii price}. However, releasing this DA* lens shows that they are still thinking in terms of APS quality.

Yeah, so you're thinking along lines similar to FozzFoster.

But there are forum members who loudly proclaim a Pentax body must have this feature or that … well, anything's possible for the price, especially if you charge more than customers have paid in the past …. but will they actually hand over dollars as enthusiastically as they post in a thread?

Beholder3's survey of members' wishlists for future lens unfortunately showed a disconnect. Glass was insisted on that the respondents actually wouldn't buy themselves.

[BigMackCam]

Beholder3's survey of members' wishlists for future lens unfortunately showed a disconnect. Glass was insisted on that the respondents actually wouldn't buy themselves.

In fairness, that's a danger with any wish-list survey. Many folks will cite what they absolutely must have in order to be or remain satisfied... until such products are released, and the associated price tags strike a harsh note of reality and sobriety. My own wish-list versus what I'm prepared to (or able to) shell out for are quite different Hence, I temper my wishes to things I believe I might actually be able to justify and afford. Even then, I'm typically optimistic

[Larrymc]

Yep, the problem with the flagship technology in one sensor format is that it will end up costing as much as entry or mid-level of the bigger format.

Hey Clackers, How about explaining what the entry or mid-level of the bigger format Pentax DSLR is? And no the 645Z as the bigger format doesn't work. I'm just curious.

[Mountain Vision]

Here are the current D FA primes.



The sales price of the D FA 100mm Macro WR is around ~$450US. This lens checks off a lot of features for the price. This lens is a winning design that should be applied to other focal lengths including the FA LTD's. If Ricoh/Pentax can produce the D FA 100 Macro WR at such a reasonable price to high quality standards they should be able to do the same across focal lengths.

I agree. I don't see any reason they couldn't have put the FA 35mm f/2 into a metal barrel and with quick shift and WR, just like they did with the DFA 100mm, which is basically an FA Limited lens. That being said, I'm still glad they did this update as I think keeping the lens catalog active is more important than waiting for new designs to be ready. I'd like to see them push more old film era designs out the door while also working on new modern and higher resolution built for digital designs. Those film era lenses with updated coatings may be good enough for most people to use, there is little R&D cost and they are quite compact. Could be a win win for everyone.

[monochrome]

Ahem!...

Thank you for refreshing my memory. At least I didn’t cite Cosina

[clackers]

In fairness, that's a danger with any wish-list survey. Many folks will cite what they absolutely must have in order to be or remain satisfied... until such products are released, and the associated price tags strike a harsh note of reality and sobriety. My own wish-list versus what I'm prepared to (or able to) shell out for are quite different Hence, I temper my wishes to things I believe I might actually be able to justify and afford. Even then, I'm typically optimistic

Absolutely, Mike, the wide variation also showed that members didn't even agree with other members as to what products must be released.

It's fascinating that people who have a camera rather than an MBA think that company executives, with all their data, must be fools because they do something else.

[clackers]

Hey Clackers, How about explaining what the entry or mid-level of the bigger format Pentax DSLR is? And no the 645Z as the bigger format doesn't work. I'm just curious.

Do you mean in the previous example, Larry?

As Reh points out, the D500 costs as much as the Pentax K-1.

And the Nikon D5 is *more* than the Pentax 645Z, BTW.

[BigMackCam]

I agree. I don't see any reason they couldn't have put the FA 35mm f/2 into a metal barrel and with quick shift and WR, just like they did with the DFA 100mm

Because it was easier, quicker and cheaper to add HD and SP coatings, an updated focus ring and different external finish. Much easier, quicker and cheaper. And resulting in a cheaper - hence more accessible - product.

I guarantee, if they'd changed to a metal barrel, quick shift and WR, it would have cost considerably more... let's say $700 instead of $400. Some folks would be saying, "Hang on, $700 bucks for the same optical formula with quick-shift? Oh, a metal barrel?? OK... but still... I can buy the old FA35/2 for half the price!!"

[Mountain Vision]

Because it was easier, quicker and cheaper to add HD and SP coatings, an updated focus ring and different external finish. Much easier, quicker and cheaper. And resulting in a cheaper - hence more accessible - product.

I guarantee, if they'd changed to a metal barrel, quick shift and WR, it would have cost considerably more... let's say $700 instead of $400. Some folks would be saying, "Hang on, $700 bucks for the same optical formula with quick-shift? Oh, a metal barrel?? OK... but still... I can buy the old FA35/2 for half the price!!"

No doubt. But like I said, I'm also a fan of what they did. Either way it's a win in my opinion. There are pros and cons to both possibilities. Also, I guess looking at where the current price of the DFA 100 WR is after 10 years on the market, it's tough to say they could/would have priced the DFA 35 f/2 at $450 vs $399 if it came with QS, WR, and a metal barrel.

[Larrymc]

Do you mean in the previous example, Larry?

As Reh points out, the D500 costs as much as the Pentax K-1.

And the Nikon D5 is *more* than the Pentax 645Z, BTW.

I'm referring to Pentax......I don't give a rip about the over priced Nikon gear. The way I read your quoted statement was that a "flagship" (lousy term) APSC Pentax DSLR would cost more than the "flagship" FF Pentax DSLR since obviously there is no entry or midlevel FF Pentax DSLR . Pentax is the only camera system I'm interested in. All the rest can go fly a kite.