[Rondec]

Gladly I got the right horse some 10+yrs ago !

---------- Post added 03-14-22 at 01:27 PM ----------

Please excuse my ignorance, here are my mixed thoughts response to the post, sorry some goes off topic.

Pentax had a bad time a few years back due to lack of 4K video, even in our forum 9 out of 10 wanted this feature badly added to the then "upcoming" K3 replacement and now we have it. It was unfortunate to me Pentax raised the price tag quite a lot on the K3-III I believe largely due to the addition of 4K video, even though it is “mediocre” kind of 4K to most video shooters. I rarely shoot video FHD is good enough for me, AFAIK 4K was first used in News, such as to cover the Olympic Games, to allow room for cropping while something unexpected happened out of the main focus. I don’t see the point in investing in a 4K camera unless I shoot a lot of video which I don’t, but the current “marketing trend” leaves us no choice but to pay maybe 20% more for something we (I) don’t fully unitize. IMO those who want better video on Pentax should look elsewhere, to those with long time experience in producing video cameras like Lumix and Canon CX series that also shoot stills.

Shooting video is unlike shooting stills, “resolution” is not a key factor for a good video but the planning of the whole process, the storyboard…etc. affect the end result.There are tons of user test videos on the web I don’t see the need for 4K, any FHD camera on the hands of an experienced shooter can get better result, you may not agree with me, please just take it someone yelling bcoz he doesn’t need 4K and can’t afford the overpriced camera !

Regarding the need for higher resolution on the next Pentax FF, in unscientific calculation, if Pentax uses the same type of sensor with the same “Pixel Density” of the APSC 24Mpx one, the FF sensor can produce up to 40 instead of 36Mpx. Please don’t overuse the term “resolution” it has different meanings depending on use. ”Resolution” is per area NOT total pixel count, so I use “Pixel Density” here to prevent confusion. We found a sensor with higher “pixel count” produces a finer image, simply bcoz we reduce or enlarge the images to the same size, by simple logic, an image from a large sensor reduced to smaller size naturally gives higher ”resolution”, so why bother to compare that way we already knew the answer ! sensors with same ”Pixel Density ” of different “technology” like CCD, CMOS, X-Tran, Foven X3…. etc. should be compared instead.

I don’t think Pentax will produce a new FF with higher than 40Mpx, by doing so not only will the pricing go rocket high, but will also kill Pentax’s 645 line, unless it wants to end it to save cost for the 35mm line.

Others have commented, but the K-3 III was the first big step forward for quite a while and as such, it took quite a bit of investment to get it off the ground. It had new auto focus algorithms and a new processing engine (their PRIME was getting pretty long in the tooth). 4K video is a side effect of using a modern sensor capable of that sort of read out speed. Most sensors now have that capability and Pentax would have to search pretty hard to find a sensor old enough not to allow for 4K video. Once the sensor is capable of it there is no sense not enabling it.

I have read posts from folks who wish that Pentax left things like video and user modes off of their cameras, implying that if Pentax did that, the cost of the camera would go down. This ignores the fact that most of these things are simply software that is already ready to go. On the other hand, if leaving features out of a camera sells fewer bodies, then it could actually push the price up to leave it off.

In the long run, camera bodies are going up in price. There are a number of reasons for this, but probably the biggest one is simply that the market is shrinking -- more people are using their phones or simply not replacing their ILCs as frequently. Brands are trying to move prices up. The OM-1 just released for 2200 dollars. Nikon's lowest level camera (the Z50) is priced at 860. Canon's cheapest EOS R camera is 1800 dollars. Fuji's next camera is expected to be released at north of 2000 dollars. I think the consumers are just going to have to deal with higher prices in the camera market for the foreseeable future.

[Serkevan]

The OM-1 just released for 2200 dollars. Nikon's lowest level camera (the Z50) is priced at 860. Canon's cheapest EOS R camera is 1800 dollars. Fuji's next camera is expected to be released at north of 2000 dollars. I think the consumers are just going to have to deal with higher prices in the camera market for the foreseeable future.

Just as a small correction, the EOS RP is $1000, although it naturally feels pretty entry level in every spec (and build quality) - the only good point over the K-1 is AF and a larger 50 raw buffer, which is anyway expected of a 26MP camera... I guess its guts are the absolute cheapest Canon could cobble together.

Lenses, though. R lenses are a whole lotta cash. If one was alright with Sony handling, the E-mount would earn a lot of marks just because of the excellent Tamron* support (and Sigma, but I somehow always feel there's something off - or at least uninspiring - about the rendering in Sigma lenses. It's one of those unfathomable things which are probably not based in anything real ).

*The 70-180/2.8 and 17-28/2.8 zooms are a couple of those *very* few "whyyyyy is this not available for K-mount" lenses.

[beholder3]

Brands are trying to move prices up. The OM-1 just released for 2200 dollars. Nikon's lowest level camera (the Z50) is priced at 860. Canon's cheapest EOS R camera is 1800 dollars. Fuji's next camera is expected to be released at north of 2000 dollars. I think the consumers are just going to have to deal with higher prices in the camera market for the foreseeable future.

We have only seen the beginning of this. Any lens up to $1000 is a very cheap lens now and any camera up to $1500 is a cheap camera.
Full-featured FF cameras are going to be in the $2500-3500 bracket and that is not "flagships". It is just upper middle class with some limitations.


Less rich people will either have to settle with old and used models or buying a new model no more than every 5+ years.
This actually again plays into the hands of the manufacturers, because those people then will not be able to earn a lot by selling their old stuff in order to switch brands and so it makes the barrier to change systems much higher, since any switch required huge investments unless again they switch brands only to buy obsolete models of their "new" brand.

It is a sellers market and I hate it, but that is where it all is going. Pretty much the same as with housing prices in many areas of the world.

And let's be honest. Millions of humans on this planet have bigger issues with price raises on thing they need for actual physical survival. We discuss tiny improvements in luxury items we already own.

[Serkevan]

And let's be honest. Millions of humans on this planet have bigger issues with price raises on thing they need for actual physical survival. We discuss tiny improvements in luxury items we already own.

Yeah, unfortunately this is going from "relatively affordable hobby" (with judicious purchases of a competent kit) to "truly a first world problem". And middle-upper-middle class first world at that. If my circumstances were more exacting financially I wouldn't even consider buying anything else in a long, long time. At this point I'm equipped enough that anything more I buy will be hard to justify on any grounds besides "I want it".

[biz-engineer]

Less rich people will either have to settle with old and used models or buying a new model no more than every 5+ years.

I consider reasonable spending on photography no more than 1000 ($/EU) a year, so I would have to wait until 2028 for my next purchase, unless I sell some of what I have for every new purchase.

This actually again plays into the hands of the manufacturers, because those people then will not be able to earn a lot by selling their old stuff in order to switch brands and so it makes the barrier to change systems much higher

The evolution of prices isn't something linear, used prices fall quickly after product introduction, and much slower after a few years. Buying used and at the right time can be a lot cheaper than buying new. Buying new and sell quickly is a valid approach, cheaper than rental. Buying used after a few years is also cost effective. Buying new and keep a few years is very costly. Now that cameras are getting more and more expensive, it's important to think about an approach to minimize costs.

---------- Post added 15-03-22 at 13:12 ----------

At this point I'm equipped enough that anything more I buy will be hard to justify on any grounds besides "I want it".

I figured how camera companies sell more than what we need, but comments from one of my recent threads show that people don't understand it. I'm glad I figured that out for myself, so I'll be spending much much less on cameras and lenses.

[Kunzite]

I have read posts from folks who wish that Pentax left things like video and user modes off of their cameras, implying that if Pentax did that, the cost of the camera would go down.

I read all those wishes and requests as "I won't pay any reasonable price for a Pentax".
Just days ago, there was this guy on the other forum, who imagined a Pentax L-mount FF mirrorless with a K-mount SLR module, 100% viewfinder and so on (not physically possible, of course). But, no video, and it had to be priced below every other FF mirrorless on the market. TBH he wasn't really serious, but it illustrates the point.

[biz-engineer]

I read all those wishes and requests as "I won't pay any reasonable price for a Pentax".

There is a trick in the camera market. A lot of people talk a lot online but buy very few of the new products or none at all, they are influencing, expecting, waiting for others to buy the new products, such talk is easy because it's free of charge. Only a minority of photographers buy new products that keep camera companies alive. Behind the market of new camera products, there is a used market, probably ten times larger.

[jersey]

It was the same with K-3 Mk III, the same with new 16-50, will be the same with new lenses and K-1 Mk III when it arrives. Very few people buy here new, there was even a thread new vs used and majority is buying used. I already wrote it once but most of those who buy gear are not here or even on internet. They are too busy photographing :P

[Rondec]

I read all those wishes and requests as "I won't pay any reasonable price for a Pentax".
Just days ago, there was this guy on the other forum, who imagined a Pentax L-mount FF mirrorless with a K-mount SLR module, 100% viewfinder and so on (not physically possible, of course). But, no video, and it had to be priced below every other FF mirrorless on the market. TBH he wasn't really serious, but it illustrates the point.

I agree. If Pentax really would make a camera that only had the features that I use and none of the ones I don't use, it will still require some kind of processing engine, sensor (probably from Sony), shutter and things like that. Just because you don't enable a particular feature that a camera is capable of doing doesn't make if cheaper and in point of fact, if you leave certain things off (auto focus/video are examples that come to mind), you probably decrease significantly the number of people who would be interested in purchasing such a camera.

Somehow people have the impression that this is like a car where if you choose one without a moon roof or fog lights, it would be a little cheaper.

[ThorSanchez]

I agree. If Pentax really would make a camera that only had the features that I use and none of the ones I don't use, it will still require some kind of processing engine, sensor (probably from Sony), shutter and things like that. Just because you don't enable a particular feature that a camera is capable of doing doesn't make if cheaper and in point of fact, if you leave certain things off (auto focus/video are examples that come to mind), you probably decrease significantly the number of people who would be interested in purchasing such a camera.

Somehow people have the impression that this is like a car where if you choose one without a moon roof or fog lights, it would be a little cheaper.

Let's say a moon roof is a $1500 option on a $40,000 car. That's less than 4% of the purchase price. That's $75 off a $2000 camera. How many people would buy a K-3 III with no 4k video if it cost $75 less, but wouldn't buy as is? My guess is almost no one. Sounds to me like some people think dropping a handful of features would turn a K-3 III into a $1000 camera, which is not ever happening.

[beholder3]

Very few people buy here new, there was even a thread new vs used and majority is buying used.

On average very few people buy used. Not forum member = not buying used usually.

If few people would buy new as a consequence the supply of used stuff would dry up very quickly and as a result those prices would skyrocket.

The price level of used stuff is metering the supply inflow of new items as long as the maker is still alive.

On a side note the level of used buyers is also the obvious reason why makers don't give a monkey's about most discussions on forums.

"Used buyer" equals "not wanted market participant" equals "ignore freely" for them, no matter how important the used buyers feel at times.
They care for their customers, not some aftermarket people.

[zapp]

Buying a FF camera today is completely different from buying a 35mm or gear during film days. The new gear performs on a much higher level. This is not just general advancement in technology, current FF cameras made the medium format market more or less obsolete. Older lenses physically fit, but we’re made for a different level of product. Combining old and new for general purposes makes little sense these days. That’s not only another reason why prices go up, but why old and new gear guys (sadly) don’t meet that often. A five year old digital camera is more aged than a typical film camera used to be after 20 or 15 years.
It is nice to go back in time and work with different lenses, but even here high prices are paid for exotic most wanted glass while the rest sells by weight.
I just have fun with my gear, it’s always been a pricey hobby.

[RobA_Oz]

Buying a FF camera today is completely different from buying a 35mm or gear during film days. The new gear performs on a much higher level. This is not just general advancement in technology, current FF cameras made the medium format market more or less obsolete. Older lenses physically fit, but we’re made for a different level of product. Combining old and new for general purposes makes little sense these days. That’s not only another reason why prices go up, but why old and new gear guys (sadly) don’t meet that often. A five year old digital camera is more aged than a typical film camera used to be after 20 or 15 years.
It is nice to go back in time and work with different lenses, but even here high prices are paid for exotic most wanted glass while the rest sells by weight.
I just have fun with my gear, it’s always been a pricey hobby.

Some people would be surprised at what 35mm film gear actually cost. As I’ve posted several times in other threads, having bought new in the 1970s, the cost of the K-3iii was put into perspective for me when I added inflation to the 1975 price of a Spotmatic F.

[wkraus]

Some people would be surprised at what 35mm film gear actually cost. As I’ve posted several times in other threads, having bought new in the 1970s, the cost of the K-3iii was put into perspective for me when I added inflation to the 1975 price of a Spotmatic F.

Exactly. Can’t be said often enough.

[reh321]

Some people would be surprised at what 35mm film gear actually cost. As I’ve posted several times in other threads, having bought new in the 1970s, the cost of the K-3iii was put into perspective for me when I added inflation to the 1975 price of a Spotmatic F.

I spent around $700 for a Canon "Elan" kit {camera body plus 28-80mm lens plus a really good bag that I used for 20 years and is still in near mint condition} in 1995, the last film camera I purchased.