[ozlizard]

Well 3 quick comments on these recent speculations...
1. Pentax MF 645D - I too beleive that this camera is a marketing mistake. It has been around so long that the playing field has dramatically changed. Studio photographers are the small end of the market and are less likely (IMO) to switch brands, considering the investment they already have tied up in a camera system.

2. Their are a lot of people on here saying that the FF market is too small. I understand that at the moment aps-c dominates the market (more than P&S?) but I have heard of quite a few selling in my neck of the woods and there seems to be a lot of Canon 5D's around (and others). What are the actual sales figures for the 5D?

3. I would like to see someone start a poll on here to ascertain how many Pentax (or non Pentax) participants on this forum would actually consider purchasing a Pentax FF.

[asw66]

To me the 645D makes even less sense. I simply don't understand the benefits of a bulky medium format camera in the digital era. If Pentax wants to make a medium format camera then fine, but they need to re-think it from the ground up like Leica has done with their S2.

Well, we know that Ned admires Leica, and I for one would be happy for Pentax to endeavour to position itself as "The Leica for the rest of us".

[pingflood]

Pentax is now Festivus?

[asw66]

Pentax is now Festivus?

I was harking back to the old Apple slogan -- forgot all about that more recent cultural reference....

[bogiesbad]

Pentax is now Festivus?

It sure is. Did the "airing of grievances" not tip you off?

[monochrome]

. . .

Canon, Nikon, or Sony could easily make a full frame camera with 40+ megapixels that will be perfectly usable up to ISO 640 or so; which is all that is needed for a studio camera.

. . .

If it was really as easy as you think they would have done so by now.

Re-read the long post on wafer yield. Simple Return on Invested Capital decision making - and capital is VERY hard to come by these days.

[Art Vandelay II]

If it was really as easy as you think they would have done so by now.

Why would they have already done it by now? Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of technical hurdles, but the simple fact is they'd much rather sell pros a 24mp camera this year, and a 40 megapixel again two years from now. The D3x is the top dog at the moment, but still has only 2.8 MP/cm² pixel density. In comparison the new Canon 7D has 5.4 MP/cm². I'm not going to be surprised in the slightest if the next version of the Canon 1Ds has the same pixel density as the 7D. If it does that will put it right around 46mp. Again, a $7,000 1Ds with super fast AF and easy handling or a bulky $10k+ Pentax 645 or Mamiya/PhaseOne? That's an easy call for me.

I rather doubt this one, because if it were possible to be selling an FF camera for vastly less, one of the camera manufacturers would break lockstep and do it for the publicity and converts from other mounts it would generate.

FF cameras so far sell in much lower numbers, so the cost has to be amortized across much fewer products - meaning much higher development and tooling etc. costs per product.

Sony just released a $2000 full frame camera, but it still has weather seals and a magnesium body, I don't see why Nikon would have an issue at all making a full frame camera in a cheaper D90 body and sell it for around $1700.

I still say the only reason they're not is due to planned obsolescence. In couple of years (or maybe even next year) they will release such a camera then put a marketing blitz on to make every current D80/90 user think they need it to become better photographers. You have to give people something to upgrade to. The last thing they want is to go back to 10+ year product runs like the days of the Nikon F3 and Pentax K1000.

And the only reason full frame cameras don't sale well is simply because no $2,500+ camera sales well. I take photography pretty damn serious and I can't justify a $2500 camera....but that doesn't mean I don't want a full frame camera. In fact I don't know a single photographer that doesn't want full frame, but no one has made a budget full frame yet. As soon as someone releases a sub $2000 full frame body advanced amateurs and pros on a budget will flock to it.

---

Last edited by Art Vandelay II; 11-22-2009 at 12:27 AM.

[Art Vandelay II]

Pentax is now Festivus?

I've already got my pole up. Now I just need to find a stripper for it.

[knoxploration]

Sony just released a $2000 full frame camera, but it still has weather seals and a magnesium body, I don't see why Nikon would have an issue at all making a full frame camera in a cheaper D90 body and sell it for around $1700.

Sony are in a slightly different position as compared to Nikon. They've got much lower DSLR market share, and hence are more likely to be willing to cut into their bottom line in an effort to increase market share.

And the only reason full frame cameras don't sale well is simply because no $2,500+ camera sales well. I take photography pretty damn serious and I can't justify a $2500 camera....but that doesn't mean I don't want a full frame camera.

Chicken, meet egg. Think back a few years - we went through the exact same thing with APS-C. Remember when the Canon EOS D30 was considered affordable by APS-C standards, at ~$3,000? Think back a few years before that... We went through the exact same thing when digital cameras really kicked off, and cameras with postage-stamp sized sensors could command prices as high as $2,000. The bills have to be paid before the price comes down.

In fact I don't know a single photographer that doesn't want full frame, but no one has made a budget full frame yet. As soon as someone releases a sub $2000 full frame body advanced amateurs and pros on a budget will flock to it.

I'd be willing to bet you do know photographers who don't want full-frame (or at least, could care less either way). Heck, some of them are in this forum.

[redrockcoulee]

My first posting other than in the introduction. Art Have you ever used medium format cameres and a D3? The Nikon is larger and heavier than my Hasselblad. However the useage of the two formats are totally different. The larger viewfinder is only one of the important differences as is the ability to use waist level viewfinders. When someone is out shooting a two page spread for a magazine ad and setting up lights etc the little extra weight of the camera makes no difference.

The sensor in medium format camera is twice the size of a full size 35mm sensor and it still a cropped sensor in MF. DLSR will only get as good as medium format if the technology stalls forever in medium format. Currently you can get as large as 65 megapizel sensors and as small as 16 and I was told by someone who has both a 16 megapixel back and a high end Canon that the MF images are much superior in terms of clarity and tonality. But why worry about comparing the two when the purpose behind the two formats are almost entirely different. For sporting events for example a DSLR triumphs in terms of speed and handling but on a tripod for landscape or in the studio the opposite occurs.

If I was to replace the D200 I am using with a Pentax camera I would most likely perfer a cropped camera as I am not that much into wide angle, have the medium format and large format for what they do go but would like the advantages of the cropped sensor for wildlide and sports. But that is just me. Whatever company could product a full size sensor camera cheaply would do so in order to grab more market share. Cannot think that Nikon for example would say that even though we can produce that camera we would like to give Canon a couple of years free reign in that market so we can sell more DX lenses.

Pentax will more than likely come out with a full size sensor as the market wants rather than needs prevail but I do not think the target market for the 645 are the same people that the full size DSLR is. Perhaps Pentax wants medium format photographers to not think they were totally abandoned and there just might be more of a market in the long term as prices drop for MF in the fine art market as more and more people appreaciate the advantages of the larger format for certain types of photography. If everyone had the same needs and all subjects and conditions needed only one type of camera size and type than that is what we will have. I have limited access to a D3 and have as yet had any reason to borrow it though my wife did for one project. The weight of the D3 and one small zoom lens was the same as for my film camera MZ5n, a 70 -200 zoom, 17-28 fisheye zoom, 50 1.7 F, 28 2.8 M and camera bag combined. Or at least within three grams of it as weighed on a kitchen scale. I cannot see Pentax even going after the market that would use that monster. Pentax would need to target users of a D700 as the largest camera they would use and be even smaller than that to prevail in the full frame market.

[Art Vandelay II]

My first posting other than in the introduction. Art Have you ever used medium format cameras and a D3?

Haven't used a medium format since college. We used Mamiya 645's and large format Sinar A1's. I've only used a D3 in stores farting around. They are also way too big for my taste. I just used the D3/1Ds in my example's because that is what Canikon is currently producing. I could have just as easily used a 40mp Sony A900 which is less than half the weight of a Mamiya 645. That said the D3 is 20oz lighter than a 645D III. 1.2 extra pounds is nothing to sneeze at.

Don't get me wrong, I know medium format camera's have IQ advantages over 35mm cameras, but it's basically a mirror image of the APS-C/35mm debate...just one more notch up the size food chain. To each his own, but I personally would rather shoot with a 5D Mark II size camera and a 50mm f/1.2 then I would a 645 with an 80mm f/2.8. Bigger view finders are always welcome, but 35mm view finders of yesteryear such as the Pentax LX are fine. I have no problems using them...and they are positively engulfing compared to APS-C view finders.

I really don't care if Pentax makes a 645 digital, I'll never be able to afford it and the last time I read about it they didn't even plan on selling it in the US anyway. However, I do wish they'd make a digital version of the LX first.

[monochrome]

Why would they have already done it by now? Yes, I'm sure there are plenty of technical hurdles, but the simple fact is they'd much rather sell pros a 24mp camera this year, and a 40 megapixel again two years from now.

Technology itself isn't the issue. I'd guess Pentax knows all the math necessary to do precisely what you suggest, right now.

Planned obsolescence isn't the issue - that is the perspective of the buyer. From the perspective of the manufacturer, what you cal P.O., the semiconductor industry calls Moore's Law; and they are merely responding to market demand.

The issue is Cost of Capital and Return on Invested Capital. Hoya/Pentax is a business. Businesses make business decisions and take risks based on their determination of the most likely, highest return on the capital necessary to bring products to market and sell them.

Each potential product a company evaluates competes against all the others on a Risk/Reward basis, receiving an allocation of available capital for development and marketing until all available capital is exhausted, or until the risks to further capital deployment are not justified by potential return on capital.

I expect Hoya to continue to introduce surprises such as the K-7 and K-x, building a market niche, becoming a high-margin, value-added brand. It will take, however, years to establish this reputation.

We whine in these threads about months, or next year's Photokina. A corporation has an infinite life expectancy - to Hoya, a 5-year business plan is short.

Hoya will market a camera with a 24x36 sensor when the potential return on invested capital is better than continuing to do what they are doing - or better than anything else they could do with that capital - not before and not after.

Until we learn to understand the rules of capital we will never be happy with what we have. Until we learn to understand Japanese capital thinking in conservative companies (and Hoya, rated AA, is conservative) we will never be happy with what we have.

Unhappy people should do what makes them happy, particularly when so to do requires nothing more than product substitution.

[thibs]

However, I do wish they'd make a digital version of the LX first.

I wouldn't say it is exactly that but IMO the K-7 is quite close to a Digital LX (taking into account technics evolution). A true "LX-D", will never ever come out. I'd be Hoya I wouldn't produce it either.
Commercially, how to shot oneself in the foot. On a user point of view however, I agree completely.

[Art Vandelay II]

I wouldn't say it is exactly that but IMO the K-7 is quite close to a Digital LX (taking into account technics evolution). A true "LX-D", will never ever come out. I'd be Hoya I wouldn't produce it either.
Commercially, how to shot oneself in the foot. On a user point of view however, I agree completely.

Take a look through an LX viewfinder (the FA-1 option) then take a look through the K-7 and say that. The K-7 is my favorite APS-C camera on the market, but my favorite part of the LX is the viewfinder(s)...the one area the K-7 comes up short.



The K-7 doesn't look like it fairs that badly against the $7,000 EOS 1Ds, but now take into consideration the Pentax LX has .9x magnification compared to the 1Ds's .76x. If you shoot both film and digital switching back to an APS-C viewfinder after composing through that monster view finder is painful.

But, I do agree, the K-7 is certainly on the right track, and I think it's a wonderful camera from the limited time I've been able to test it. I didn't mean to imply they should build a fully manual digital LX (although I'd like one). My ideal digital camera would be a modern version of the Pentax LX body and interchangeable view finders, 24x36mm, same 11point AF currently being used (it's fine for me), AF assist light, 3" LCD, at least one finder option with a split prism focus screen already installed. So basically a Digital LX with AF for times when I don't feel like manually focusing.

There's nothing on the market like that at the moment. It would certainly separate Pentax from Canon, Nikon, and Sony. It would make a great hiking, travel, street, and nature camera. Even if priced at $2500 it would give people like myself lusting after the Leica M9 and "affordable" alternative when paired with the limited lenses.

Edit:
Just look at this thing:


That would be the sexiest DSLR on the market...and yes, looks matter. Just look at the buzz the E-P1 generated where as the Panasonic G1 was panned even though it was a much better camera. People like products that they can feel passionate about (as sad as that is); and when I look at today's DSLR's I see nothing to get excited about from a design standpoint. Most have good ergo's and do what they're supposed to do, but so does a Honda Accord.

[thibs]

I know what you mean Art, but lets be realistic (again, I doesn't mean it the best thing but the most probable; I agree about your comment on ideal viewfinder):

* Altough better viewfinders are clearly desirable, I doubt we will se much better than what we have in the K-7 on an APS-C camera.

* Interchangeable viewfinders IMO are a no go in Digital area for technical reasons. Even more since Pentax would logicaly want them to be WR'ed.

Seing your (useful) comparison on viewfinder sizes, I'd tend to think Nikon/Pentax did good job and Canon did lame job. Not that difficult with an FF sensor, really

My comparison between LX and K-7 is more based on the spirit (if I can call it that way) behind the K-7: very capable, full of little details which make it stand out and yet, very affordable (for what it offers).

I'd really want a "pro" K-3 or whatever with 1x or better, 100% viewfinder. Defenitely. But IMO they will rather go FF route with rather good but not exceptional viewfinder. At least initially.