[Urkeldaedalus]

I know Pentax is still unable to make a Full Frame body at this moment, nor they are willing to bear the risk.

So, now they go in another way to compete - make a high grade body with most updated features, the best possible ergonomics and compactness as well as with highest possible build quality, so that it makes itself an unique product with all those valuable differentiating characteristics in the current market. But, it is still an APS-C DSLR afterall!

So and so, what do you think if this would succeed? Image quality wise, I still not believing that any APS-C can beat those of the current Full Frame lines. And price wise, the price difference is not very big. Say, if you pay just a little bit more, even one can get the old Full Frame Canon 5D MkI which can still be bought brand new in the market for the time being. And then for a little bit more, the popular Nikon D700 is there!

All in all, Do you think that Pentax can win in the game and competition? Or, just to continue their life in the DSLR battle field with the new K-7??

I think the way you propose this question is flawed in a similar way to a lot of these threads are flawed, in that you clearly presuppose that full frame is the superior approach, and then try to rationalize Pentax's actions from this perspective.

Here is what I mean. From your perspective, Rice High, the difference in image quality between APS-C and full frame is clear -- so clear that you said "I still not believing that any APS-C can beat those of the current Full Frame lines."

Also, from your perspective a new Canon 5D ($2,000) or a new Nikon D700 ($2,400) are only "a little bit" more expensive than the K-7, which will likely be released at a price somewhere between $1,500 to $1,600.

So from this we can gather that your view is that the difference in image quality between full frame and APS-C is vast and will remain so, and that $500 or $800 in difference is not a lot of money.

The reason I wanted to point out this perspective is that I believe the opposite is true -- most people who make up the DSLR market -- even most photo enthusiasts -- could not tell the difference between a FF and a APS-C picture if you didn't show them a 100% crop, but most of them would view $500-$800 as a significant difference in price. Or you could break this down further and say that even among the small group that can tell the difference between APS-C and FF quality, quite a few will be unwilling or unable to afford to pay the difference.

I think the difference the K-7 will live and die with how well Pentax is able to market it. The K20D is a great camera, but I think Pentax didn't do a good enough job showing people why it was worth buying over the already solid K10D. And that was more of a marketing mistake than anything else -- they let their competitors say what the camera was, rather than creating that impression themselves.

Personally, I would love it if Pentax had a full frame offering just so the people who are willing to shell out the money could feel like they are valued, too. But I also think that a K-7, if the specs are similar to what has been rumored, is a saavy move. It will help them compete with the semi pro offerings from Nikon and Canon, but more importantly it will position them well to battle Olympus and Sony for third in the market, which I think would be a nice accomplishment for a company that many were writing off as dead earlier this year.

I think this could be a good year for Pentax if they don't bungle things (always a possibility). What will decide their future, however, is what they do to stay competitive in 2010 and 2011, and I think full frame -- especially if Samsung develops a sensor and is willing to collobarate again -- could re-enter the picture at this juncture.

[ftpaddict]

This thread is another red herring.

Do you actually KNOW what Pentax's long term STRATEGY is?

The K-7 is not a strategy. It is a camera body, consistent with Pentax's history of smaller, feature-rich camera bodies that maximize the abilities of its lenses at a decent price.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Stop implying/asking whether Pentax will succeed or fail at something you cannot possibly know. You are nothing more than a rabble-rouser.

Couldn't agree more.

[ogl]

I think that K-7 is new base for the future FF.

[RMabo]

With the K-7, Pentax has tried to make something *unique*.
A compact weather sealed semi pro / pro hybrid DSLR with fast AF, fast continous shooting, video, in a light and rugged and very compact body with professional user interface, to appeal to outdoor photographers and street photographers that wants something small, light with fantastic image quality.

The 24x36 competition is too big, even the 4/3 competition (Olympus E-3) is too big.
Will Pentax survive? I say they have a better chance to survive by going their own path instead of joining Nikon and Canon. And as we have seen, the Sony A900 has failed to make an impact on the market. Why buy a Sony when you can buy a Nikon or Canon?
One needs to be *different*. If you offer the same thing as Canon and Nikon, why buy the copy instead of the original? Sony has tried to be the copy, and they have not - so far - suceeded with their 24x36 offering.

I feel positive about the move Pentax makes, and I believe what they do know is their only chance to survive. If they release "just another 24x36", they would be doomed.

[ryan s]

Oh no. Another thread about "will Pentax survive"/"is Pentax doomed"/"where will Pentax be in x years".

Started by you-know-who

Pentax should get the 645D out first.

That is their plan from all I've read...

This thread is another red herring.

Do you actually KNOW what Pentax's long term STRATEGY is?

The K-7 is not a strategy. It is a camera body, consistent with Pentax's history of smaller, feature-rich camera bodies that maximize the abilities of its lenses at a decent price.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Stop implying/asking whether Pentax will succeed or fail at something you cannot possibly know. You are nothing more than a rabble-rouser.

You got it Paul...the blue text sums it up well

I feel positive about the move Pentax makes, and I believe what they do know is their only chance to survive. If they release "just another 24x36", they would be doomed.

Basically...what Sony did. Another "me too" product.

We still have to realize...it may seem like "everyone has FF!!1zomg" but FF sales are only like 5% of the market. People see Apple computers "everywhere"...with a 10% market share...

I'm not a Pentax fanboy by any means but I'm convinced they'll come up with something unique and different if they go down that road.

[lol101]

Just out of curiosity, where do you see the K20D in comparison to Canon and Nikon?

In my opinion it's far superior to the EOS 5D Mk II and the Nikon D3, image quality wise. And the build quality isn't shabby either.

I should probably not bite into the "superior this or that" debate but... what exactly do you see in the 5DMkII or D3/D700 that is of lower standards (I just hate the word inferior) to the K20 IQ wise?

I just ask because I got to the opposite conclusions when I tried my K20D side by side with a 5D (MkI) and I was under the impression that the D3/MkII were even better...?

On the other hand, i wouldn't hesitate to rate the build quality (and control layout) of the K20 a good step above the 5D.

[vitalsax]

This thread is another red herring.

Do you actually KNOW what Pentax's long term STRATEGY is?

The K-7 is not a strategy. It is a camera body, consistent with Pentax's history of smaller, feature-rich camera bodies that maximize the abilities of its lenses at a decent price.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Stop implying/asking whether Pentax will succeed or fail at something you cannot possibly know. You are nothing more than a rabble-rouser.

rabble-rouser=one that stirs up (as to hatred or violence) the masses of the people : demagogue.

Ouch!


u could went home without that

[vitalsax]

if u cannot see that is the right side pic

[redpigeons]

if u cannot see that is the right side pic

that's cool!!

what lenses did you use?

I had the same results comparing the K20d to the 5DMKII

but I used the 31mm on the k20d and the 24-70L on the 5D

and the 31mm is just that much better any way

[cwood]

I think BC this is whats on everyons mind .

And its only going to get worst as FF cameras will become better and cheaper.

There have been a lot of complaints that Nikon replaced the D3 with the D3x which does not perform as well at high ISO - plus it is mucho dinero

Canon 5D mkII is more than 2x Canon 50D

Nikon D700 is ~$300 more than Canon 5D mkII and almost double D300.

There is a strong argument that Full Frame has gotten worse in the last couple of years (as pixel counts went up) and the prices have not come down to anywhere near comparable to APS.

We are a LONG way from the two systems being comparable in terms of price but depending on your application they are already comparable in performance (see Ben's work)

[robgo2]

The K-7 is not a strategy. It is a camera body, consistent with Pentax's history of smaller, feature-rich camera bodies that maximize the abilities of its lenses at a decent price.

The K-7 may not represent a strategy in the truest sense, but is a tactical weapon in the implementation of a strategy. Although we don't yet know all the details of the camera, it would seem to be consistent with Pentax's previous statements that they want to be a niche company--not necessarily the high end champion--much like Subaru is in the automobile industry, and that most definitely is a strategy. If the K-7 offers exceptionally high quality along with good value, I expect it to succeed, but on a Pentax scale, not a Nikon or Canon scale.

Rob

[robgo2]

that's cool!!

what lenses did you use?

I had the same results comparing the K20d to the 5DMKII

but I used the 31mm on the k20d and the 24-70L on the 5D

and the 31mm is just that much better any way

Those images are from Imaging Resources' Comparometer, and I presume that those on the right are from D700. IR makes no mention of what lenses they use in their testing, at least none that I have been able to find. One would presume that they choose comparable lenses from the individual camera manufacturers, although it is possible that they use the kit lenses.

The exposure of these two shots is quite different, but there can be no argument that the K20D shows much more detail in this particular instance. There are other comparison shots that are less clearly in Pentax's favor. I do believe that choice of lenses (corner softness), exposure and post-processing can make significant differences. For all I know, Imaging Resource uses in-camera JPGs.

Rob

[Kunzite]

But the info is in the exif. If it's D700, then in both cases a Sigma 70mm macro lens was used.

[vitalsax]

k20d vs d700 in this order.

[Samsungian]

.... and you'll see its not "$300" more than 5DII. Instead the past couple days its been $2424.95. Thats $275 less than 5DII. And that price is UP. I paid $2319 for my D700 via B&H on Jan 14th 2009. Having both old tech 12mp 5D and new tech 12mp D700 puts me in the position that I need to be Wow'd by Pentax to add to my K20D. I really like K20D, but when we travel we take the Canon & Nikon full frames. When the wife travels she takes K20D & a few old lenses. This gear assortment crossing 3 brands works well for us.

I'd add at the moment I've got to be Wow'd by Canon and Nikon to add any more of their full frames from them too. I'm pretty satisfied with the status of my kit... Pentax would amaze me if K7 is full frame. So, Just Another 9+ days of guessing will come to an end ;^) Some people have really high expectations. I hope everyones happy with its specs and launch price.

In the meantime here's an interesting thread from a Pentaxian in his recent photography class:


http://photo.net/pentax-camera-forum/00TIeE

There have been a lot of complaints that Nikon replaced the D3 with the D3x which does not perform as well at high ISO - plus it is mucho dinero

Canon 5D mkII is more than 2x Canon 50D

Nikon D700 is ~$300 more than Canon 5D mkII and almost double D300.

There is a strong argument that Full Frame has gotten worse in the last couple of years (as pixel counts went up) and the prices have not come down to anywhere near comparable to APS.

We are a LONG way from the two systems being comparable in terms of price but depending on your application they are already comparable in performance (see Ben's work)