Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-10-2010, 03:35 PM   #31
Senior Member
str8talk83's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Naples, FL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 198
@ Ben_Edict

Thanks for posting up those stats! I always suspected that full-frame cameras took up a small portion of sales but I had no idea the difference was that large. I was referring more to the 5D mark I because it has a major cult like following amongst canon consumers. It's harder to track the ownership of this camera though because it is mostly being purchased in the used market.

02-10-2010, 04:34 PM   #32
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by str8talk83 Quote
I always suspected that full-frame cameras took up a small portion of sales but I had no idea the difference was that large. I was referring more to the 5D mark I because it has a major cult like following amongst canon consumers. It's harder to track the ownership of this camera though because it is mostly being purchased in the used market.
We may not like it, but FF is a small niche market and given the difficulties Pentax had for many years and the smallness of the company (compared to the giants) it is very understandable to me, that they did not go the FF-route. Though there has been a lot of discussion and speculations about a Pentax FF, I still think, that the Photokina 2008 statements by Pentax officials here in Germany are true, that they won't go for FF. But ofcourse these policies can change. But currently the sensor alone it too expensive, to allow for a camera that fits Pentax' price segment.

As far as I know, none of the big names makes a profit out of FF bodies. Perhaps the 5DII and follow-ups will change that. But currently it looks, as whether the smaller sensor market (micro4/3) is really booming. These cameras provide, what Pentax also tries with the colourful K-x: establishing a DSLR (even one with electronic viewfinder) as daaily companion, fashionable accessory for people, who want to be more sophisticated than the typical point-and-shoot customer. This is, where the real growth lies, I think.

Ben
02-11-2010, 06:32 AM   #33
Junior Member
malakola's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 42
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
I thought I read in this forum somewhere the 35mm full frame mirror size in istD* was refuted?

I don't know, I don't own a istD* to compare.

Have you got comparison images of the istD* mirror size versus aps-c mirror size posted in the forum somewhere ?
*istD & K200D
Attached Images
 
02-11-2010, 11:52 AM   #34
Senior Member
str8talk83's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Naples, FL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 198
QuoteOriginally posted by Ben_Edict Quote
We may not like it, but FF is a small niche market and given the difficulties Pentax had for many years and the smallness of the company (compared to the giants) it is very understandable to me, that they did not go the FF-route. Though there has been a lot of discussion and speculations about a Pentax FF, I still think, that the Photokina 2008 statements by Pentax officials here in Germany are true, that they won't go for FF. But ofcourse these policies can change. But currently the sensor alone it too expensive, to allow for a camera that fits Pentax' price segment.

As far as I know, none of the big names makes a profit out of FF bodies. Perhaps the 5DII and follow-ups will change that. But currently it looks, as whether the smaller sensor market (micro4/3) is really booming. These cameras provide, what Pentax also tries with the colourful K-x: establishing a DSLR (even one with electronic viewfinder) as daaily companion, fashionable accessory for people, who want to be more sophisticated than the typical point-and-shoot customer. This is, where the real growth lies, I think.

Ben
It would definitely be a risk for Pentax to go full-frame. Canon came out with the 5d Mark I to try and appeal to the mass market with an "affordable" FF sensor. While it still wasn't affordable to a lot of people back then, it did sell fairly well and is very popular still today. Nikon at one time refused to go FF as well, focusing on their DX sensor cameras and lenses, but I think that the 5d forced their hand because people were switching to Canon for that. This is similar to when the Canon 1d mark III had so many problems initially with it's autofocus system, because people switched to Nikon's D3 for the proven reliability. Now some people are switching to Nikon for the d700 because they are disappointed that the 5d mark II has such a poor autofocus system in comparison.

One thing that can be said about the Nikon, Canon and Sony lines, is that they are easy to grow in. Take Canon for example. You can start with an Tl2, then get a 50D, then a 5D Mark I or 2 or step up to the pro series if you want. I think that Pentax will eventually have to come out with a FF because the other companies will "trickle down" the FF sensor as it becomes cheaper. For some reason people seem to be fascinated with the camera bodies rather than lenses. This is ironic, because a lens lasts much longer and can be useful for many years. This is one of the advantages of Pentax because they have a lot of legacy glass out there. I choose glass over body, but that's just me. (The exception is when you need a certain body for a certain task eg: pro body for professional sports shooting.)

02-11-2010, 02:10 PM   #35
Veteran Member
Ben_Edict's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SouthWest "Regio"
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,303
QuoteOriginally posted by str8talk83 Quote
It would definitely be a risk for Pentax to go full-frame. Canon came out with the 5d Mark I to try and appeal to the mass market with an "affordable" FF sensor. While it still wasn't affordable to a lot of people back then, it did sell fairly well and is very popular still today. Nikon at one time refused to go FF as well, focusing on their DX sensor cameras and lenses, but I think that the 5d forced their hand because people were switching to Canon for that. This is similar to when the Canon 1d mark III had so many problems initially with it's autofocus system, because people switched to Nikon's D3 for the proven reliability. Now some people are switching to Nikon for the d700 because they are disappointed that the 5d mark II has such a poor autofocus system in comparison.

One thing that can be said about the Nikon, Canon and Sony lines, is that they are easy to grow in. Take Canon for example. You can start with an Tl2, then get a 50D, then a 5D Mark I or 2 or step up to the pro series if you want. I think that Pentax will eventually have to come out with a FF because the other companies will "trickle down" the FF sensor as it becomes cheaper. For some reason people seem to be fascinated with the camera bodies rather than lenses. This is ironic, because a lens lasts much longer and can be useful for many years. This is one of the advantages of Pentax because they have a lot of legacy glass out there. I choose glass over body, but that's just me. (The exception is when you need a certain body for a certain task eg: pro body for professional sports shooting.)
Wise words - seriously. Even in film days, manufacturers did not make money with their top of the line pro spec bodies, not even Nikon. But these bodies were an important marketing tools, as people dreamed of a F3, but bought a FE/FM etc. And every body sold is good, because it pushes lens sales and that's where the money is.

Ben
02-11-2010, 02:22 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
Original Poster
Canon is not making money on this $1649 film camera ?

Canon is not making money on this $1,649 film camera ?

3 year factory warranty can't cost them that much.

Crazy thing is,
for someone who owns Image Stabilized Canon lenses,
one can then shoot image stabilized film camera with this or my Eos-3 or most every canon film camera made since 1990

A plus for putting stabilization in the lens.




Canon | EOS-1V Camera Body | 2043A005 | B&H Photo Video
02-11-2010, 02:38 PM   #37
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
Spoken as a true blue Canon troll...
02-11-2010, 02:40 PM   #38
Senior Member
str8talk83's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Naples, FL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 198
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote

A plus for putting stabilization in the lens.


Canon | EOS-1V Camera Body | 2043A005 | B&H Photo Video
You make a good point. I think that the stabilization issue goes both ways. For a wildlife or sports shooter, stabilization makes more sense in the lens. The lens is going to be heavier and moving around more, so the stabilized image in the viewfinder helps out with framing.

Body based stabilization has also historically not done as well when using longer focal length lenses. That being said, the ability to use shorter primes with image stabilization would be a great benefit. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other, although Pentax is cheaper because you don't have to buy the stabilized lenses and you are still getting some stabilization, even on telephotos.

My dream, would be a hybrid system. In body IS in all cameras with the ability to also use an IS lens as well. I don't see this happening though because Canon would have a lot of people using the non-stabilized variants to save money that would have paid extra for IS before. Having stabilization in my 17-55 has shown me the light when it comes to short focal lengths and stabilization. A lot of people in canon land say that it isn't needed except for on telephotos, but I sure think it's nice!

02-11-2010, 03:22 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
Original Poster
Yeah, I don't see Canon ever offering Image Stabilization in a dslr

Yeah, I don't see Canon ever offering Image Stabilization in a dslr. They've got to respond to Nikon's newly announced 16-35mm f4 Vibration Reduction full frame format lens.

Thats a plus Pentax System offers, though I like seeing image stabilize in viewfinder.
Both Nikon and Canon image is stabilized in viewfinder.

Another interesting thing I realized recently with my Eos-3 film camera is when I use 300mm f4 IS and 2x TC I still have center point autofocus function. Only Canon pro dslrs, 1D and 1Ds lineup offer autofocus function at f8. Usually AF function cut off is f5.6 unless you pay alot for canon dslr like $3,600 & up.




QuoteOriginally posted by str8talk83 Quote
You make a good point. I think that the stabilization issue goes both ways. For a wildlife or sports shooter, stabilization makes more sense in the lens. The lens is going to be heavier and moving around more, so the stabilized image in the viewfinder helps out with framing.

Body based stabilization has also historically not done as well when using longer focal length lenses. That being said, the ability to use shorter primes with image stabilization would be a great benefit. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other, although Pentax is cheaper because you don't have to buy the stabilized lenses and you are still getting some stabilization, even on telephotos.

My dream, would be a hybrid system. In body IS in all cameras with the ability to also use an IS lens as well. I don't see this happening though because Canon would have a lot of people using the non-stabilized variants to save money that would have paid extra for IS before. Having stabilization in my 17-55 has shown me the light when it comes to short focal lengths and stabilization. A lot of people in canon land say that it isn't needed except for on telephotos, but I sure think it's nice!
02-11-2010, 03:59 PM   #40
Senior Member
str8talk83's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Naples, FL
Photos: Albums
Posts: 198
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote

Another interesting thing I realized recently with my Eos-3 film camera is when I use 300mm f4 IS and 2x TC I still have center point autofocus function. Only Canon pro dslrs, 1D and 1Ds lineup offer autofocus function at f8. Usually AF function cut off is f5.6 unless you pay alot for canon dslr like $3,600 & up.
That's interesting...I do wish that I could utilize a 2X tc and autofocus. A lot of people tape the pins in the TC and it will work though. The thing I really wish would happen, is for Canon to link metering to any autofocus point selected rather than reserving it for the center point. The only exception is on the 1 series bodies of course.
02-13-2010, 11:46 AM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
Pentax is "Outdoorsman" camera brand , yet K-x is not weather sealed.
Which of its competitors is weather-sealed?

AFAIK, the cheapest (new, current model) weather-sealed DSLR that you can purchase is the K-7, by a fairly significant margin.

This isn't to say it wouldn't be nice for the K-x to be weather-sealed incidentally. Just pointing out that it's not surprising or unsual that it isn't.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
autofocus, camera, flash, frame, image, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, release, slr, ttl
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Pentax Full Frame DSLR, What to Do Now Then? RiceHigh Pentax DSLR Discussion 95 07-19-2014 10:57 AM
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM
The almost full frame Pentax? denisv Photographic Technique 44 01-19-2009 04:01 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:16 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top