[monochrome]

The K-7 may not represent a strategy in the truest sense, but is a tactical weapon in the implementation of a strategy.

Exactly my point.

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.

Agreed.

Does Subaru compete with BMW, Lexus, Mercedes or Bentley ?

Does Subaru compete with Toyota, Nissan or Honda?

Or does Subaru compete with itself, filling a niche left open by the major automakers? (FWIW, I also own a Subaru).

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

Precisely right - so why does the OP consistently raise the FF straw man then use it to knock Pentax, unless to stir up controversy?

[cwood]

.... 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.

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

My week, TPPA School and Pentax Tamron stuff - Photo.net Pentax Forum

I wuz just going off the current BH price of $2999 (-$300 rebate)
Nikon | D700 SLR Digital Camera (Camera Body) | 25444 | B&H

I'm glad to see another K20 owner who realizes his gear is as good as FF - thanks for the link

"And I get a kick at the image reviews when my stuff often looked at least as good as C/N guys right up until we got into low light and had to go to ISO 1600"

[Mirek]

I simply cannot refrain from putting this link up:
“Big Two” continue to stomp Digital SLR market in Japan - SlashGear

Although the overall market share numbers are not too great for Pentax, the actual fact is that the only full-frame body on the list, surpassing 1% of the market share is the D700.

Therefore, the full-frame cameras in total amount to a maximum of 2% of the market.
If you are a camera manufacturer, would you strive to get attention of the 2% of the market, or the rest of the 98% of the currently APS-C dominated market?

The qualities of full frame are indisputable. However these qualities yet come at a significant production price. If pentax would be able to produce a FF DSLR at the cost of a mid-range DSLR such as the K20D, it would be a smash hit. This is, however, highly unlikely.

This thread, although criticized as "rabble-rousing" and "red herring" has given me the opportunity to learn some new stuff.. and one is definitely the scale between the APS-C and FF sensors.

From the same wafer, 200 APS-C sensors can be extracted. or 20 full frames, with much more wasted wafer area.
Bigger area of FF means also they will be more likely to "catch" more errors in the wafer. Hence lesser yield percentage.
In the end, FF sensors are too big for most of the silicon foundry production lines around to manufacture without special "stitching" procedures. Hence the cost multiplies.
(In the two links below can be seen an interesting detail: artifacts on the Nikon D3 sensor related to the procedure of "stitching" the sensor parts together in the production,and its apparent effect on the sensor behavior)
Chipworks
Behaviour of Nikon D3 at saturation

The bottom line is: full frame sensors are still expensive stuff, and exclusive stuff.

It seems to me fairly obvious that Canon and Nikon's full frame flagship cameras do not pay off on their own, yet they need to exist in order to satisfy the need of the pro consumers, and sell the lenses. It is the bulk of the APS-C DSLRs and compacts that fuels the FF development.

Therefore, I hope to see a lot of APS-C pentax DSLRs sold. That's, IMHO, the only way we will one day see a FF pentax.

[Torphoto]

I simply cannot refrain from putting this link up:
“Big Two” continue to stomp Digital SLR market in Japan - SlashGear

Although the overall market share numbers are not too great for Pentax, the actual fact is that the only full-frame body on the list, surpassing 1% of the market share is the D700.

Therefore, the full-frame cameras in total amount to a maximum of 2% of the market.
If you are a camera manufacturer, would you strive to get attention of the 2% of the market, or the rest of the 98% of the currently APS-C dominated market?

The qualities of full frame are indisputable. However these qualities yet come at a significant production price. If pentax would be able to produce a FF DSLR at the cost of a mid-range DSLR such as the K20D, it would be a smash hit. This is, however, highly unlikely.

This thread, although criticized as "rabble-rousing" and "red herring" has given me the opportunity to learn some new stuff.. and one is definitely the scale between the APS-C and FF sensors.

From the same wafer, 200 APS-C sensors can be extracted. or 20 full frames, with much more wasted wafer area.
Bigger area of FF means also they will be more likely to "catch" more errors in the wafer. Hence lesser yield percentage.
In the end, FF sensors are too big for most of the silicon foundry production lines around to manufacture without special "stitching" procedures. Hence the cost multiplies.
(In the two links below can be seen an interesting detail: artifacts on the Nikon D3 sensor related to the procedure of "stitching" the sensor parts together in the production,and its apparent effect on the sensor behavior)
Chipworks
Behaviour of Nikon D3 at saturation

The bottom line is: full frame sensors are still expensive stuff, and exclusive stuff.

It seems to me fairly obvious that Canon and Nikon's full frame flagship cameras do not pay off on their own, yet they need to exist in order to satisfy the need of the pro consumers, and sell the lenses. It is the bulk of the APS-C DSLRs and compacts that fuels the FF development.

Therefore, I hope to see a lot of APS-C pentax DSLRs sold. That's, IMHO, the only way we will one day see a FF pentax.

Well said and I hope more people can understand this.

[Slugger]

I have to admit. I'd be a little disappointed if it wasn't at least 1080p@24fps. If its 720p we'd have to wait for a replacement for at least 1.5 years or so from now for a full 1080p. By then, the competitors will already have got their improved HD spec cameras out and Pentax will be playing catch up.

Pentax doesn't have the money to crank out consumer models every 8 or 9 months like Canon and Nikon do.

[Samsungian]

$400 installed for a replacement full frame 12mp sensor. If you ask me, these full frame replacement sensors are not alot of money & installed.

Now if I foolishly choose to send 5D to Canon via my favorite local repair shop they quoted me $775. So they get a $375 handling fee to cover shipping to Canon Repair in NJ or Canon Repair in California. I haven't had a problem yet, just one of the many questions I asked prior to buying into eos system.

$400 for a Canon made replacement 12mp full frame sensor installed...

I wonder how much Pentax charges for a K20D replacement aps-c 15mp sensor? Anyone know?

I simply cannot refrain from putting this link up:
“Big Two” continue to stomp Digital SLR market in Japan - SlashGear

Although the overall market share numbers are not too great for Pentax, the actual fact is that the only full-frame body on the list, surpassing 1% of the market share is the D700.

Therefore, the full-frame cameras in total amount to a maximum of 2% of the market.
If you are a camera manufacturer, would you strive to get attention of the 2% of the market, or the rest of the 98% of the currently APS-C dominated market?

The qualities of full frame are indisputable. However these qualities yet come at a significant production price. If pentax would be able to produce a FF DSLR at the cost of a mid-range DSLR such as the K20D, it would be a smash hit. This is, however, highly unlikely.

This thread, although criticized as "rabble-rousing" and "red herring" has given me the opportunity to learn some new stuff.. and one is definitely the scale between the APS-C and FF sensors.

From the same wafer, 200 APS-C sensors can be extracted. or 20 full frames, with much more wasted wafer area.
Bigger area of FF means also they will be more likely to "catch" more errors in the wafer. Hence lesser yield percentage.
In the end, FF sensors are too big for most of the silicon foundry production lines around to manufacture without special "stitching" procedures. Hence the cost multiplies.
(In the two links below can be seen an interesting detail: artifacts on the Nikon D3 sensor related to the procedure of "stitching" the sensor parts together in the production,and its apparent effect on the sensor behavior)
Chipworks
Behaviour of Nikon D3 at saturation

The bottom line is: full frame sensors are still expensive stuff, and exclusive stuff.

It seems to me fairly obvious that Canon and Nikon's full frame flagship cameras do not pay off on their own, yet they need to exist in order to satisfy the need of the pro consumers, and sell the lenses. It is the bulk of the APS-C DSLRs and compacts that fuels the FF development.

Therefore, I hope to see a lot of APS-C pentax DSLRs sold. That's, IMHO, the only way we will one day see a FF pentax.

[MPrince]

What makes you think Pentax is unable to manufacture a FF body?

P.S.: I voted yes on your poll just because I figure you were hoping for a lot of no votes.

[robgo2]

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.

What is the basis for your opinion? Is it personal experience?

Rob

[whatever7]

I already predicted that Pentax will announce a FF body in 2010 fotokina. It's more and more likely the closer we get to it.

[creampuff]

...

Does Subaru compete with BMW, Lexus, Mercedes or Bentley ?

Does Subaru compete with Toyota, Nissan or Honda?

Or does Subaru compete with itself, filling a niche left open by the major automakers? (FWIW, I also own a Subaru).

Hey I opted not to buy a Merc 190 and looked for a more practical car. My choice was Subaru, specifically the Subaru Forester 2009. It is sooooo much better than the Toyota RAV-4, Nissan Qashqai (Nissan Dualis in other markets) and the Honda CRV.

Subaru created a niche by focusing on the sporty element of conventional mass market motoring. Many may want the sporty pretensions of the WRX models but how many actually buy one?

Precisely right - so why does the OP consistently raise the FF straw man then use it to knock Pentax, unless to stir up controversy?

While RH has had his share of controversy, I personally don't think this thread is anymore controversial or stupid as started by some others.

FF is nice to have but the camera manufacturers can't sell enough of it to working pros alone to even recoup back a fraction of the R&D, development and production cost. The companies NEED the serious enthusiasts and hobbyists to buy into the following arguments:

"I need FF because the pros are using it... I will be a better photographer with a FF camera... FF is so much superior over APS-C because... because it is just so much superior, why? err because it just is...; I have the money and I just need to have the best... my life won't be complete without FF... " and other similar kinds of inane arguments.

The reality is the camera companies offering FF cameras probably aren't actually making serious money from them. Their value is more as a tool in pyramid of influence marketing to convince the mass market that they can automatically produce stunning images with such a camera. It's much like telling a 24 handicap golfer that he can somehow play like Tiger Woods if he uses a Nike golf club like Tiger's... wishful thinking, but there are many gullible suckers out there with money to burn...

[RiceHigh]

The Sony a900 is far far better than the old 5D and where I live, they retail for almost the same price. Yet, Sony makes ZERO sales.
FF means nothing if people do not believe in your product.

Sony A900 has poor noise and higher ISO performance!

[RiceHigh]

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.

Are you serious? Or just kidding??

[robgo2]

FF is nice to have but the camera manufacturers can't sell enough of it to working pros alone to even recoup back a fraction of the R&D, development and production cost. The companies NEED the serious enthusiasts and hobbyists to buy into the following arguments:

"I need FF because the pros are using it... I will be a better photographer with a FF camera... FF is so much superior over APS-C because... because it is just so much superior, why? err because it just is...; I have the money and I just need to have the best... my life won't be complete without FF... " and other similar kinds of inane arguments.

Which brings us to the fundamental question: How good does image quality have to be to be good enough for one's personal needs? Realistically speaking, the IQ from today's APS-C DSLRs is amazing and well beyond the photographic abilities of many who are clamoring for FF. Most people could achieve far greater improvements in their photography by developing their digital editing skills than they could by getting the latest and greatest camera. But that, of course, would require more effort.

Rob

[RiceHigh]

There is already a FF thread, why open another?

Nope. It is a K-7 thread!

[RiceHigh]

What makes you think Pentax is unable to manufacture a FF body?

P.S.: I voted yes on your poll just because I figure you were hoping for a lot of no votes.

This is silly. I voted it too!

I made the poll public, so go view yourself!