Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-20-2012, 01:06 AM   #2236
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
+1 for this!

You can give ground away to the competition only once. Because you won't be getting it back.
Tell that to Apple

01-20-2012, 02:20 AM   #2237
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,118
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Tell that to Apple
Nokia was THE leading cellphonecompany. They didn't jump into smartphones, so they gave their ground away. Apple jumped on it. Now Nokia wants to get it back, but that's proving to be hard.

See, you can only give ground away once. Getting it back is a lot tougher then giving it away.
01-20-2012, 03:42 AM   #2238
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Nokia was THE leading cellphonecompany. They didn't jump into smartphones, so they gave their ground away. Apple jumped on it. Now Nokia wants to get it back, but that's proving to be hard.

See, you can only give ground away once. Getting it back is a lot tougher then giving it away.
Yes, I agree that it's a lot tougher. And Apple is the proof of that it's hard, but not impossible, it's not until very recently that the "halo effect" is helping them regain the market share loss in the PC market that they suffered during the 90s before Steve Jobs returned.

(Btw. you're not quite right about smartphones - my first two smartphones were from Nokia. They just had a GUI that really s**ked)
01-20-2012, 04:00 AM   #2239
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,177
I know nothing but I'm commenting anyhow:
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
  1. MSRP about K-5 + 50%, i.e., about $2250.
I think it would have to be <$2000.
I don't think Pentax is ready to produce something for $2250 that is that good that you want it regardless of the price. Also, $2000 seems like psychological boundary one should strive to stay below.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
  • ~7 fps, alloy body, weather-sealed, damped shutter, 100% VF (optical, yes!, mirror, yes!).
Yes to the mirror, but 7fps is not necessary, AFAIC. I believe it would drive up the cost for mechanics and electronics (dual-processor design?!). The first FF offering from Pentax could try to target landscape and studio shooters. A later second product could address the sports shooters and would then need the adequate fps.

For the above reason, I believe 3D tracking with a large number of AF points could be deferred to a follow-up sports version.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
  • Vertical grip, tethering to Lightroom, new flash as options.
I don't think a permanent vertical grip is the Pentax way. I think an attachable vertical grip that integrates seamlessly is a better solution, leaving the option of a more compact camera when the grip is not attached.

It would be great if the on/off status and power of multiple flashes could be controlled from the camera. Corresponding radio receivers should be built into the external flashes.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
  • DA (APSC) crop mode always available and always optional with any lens, only default switches with a DA lens attached.
That would be great but seems to be too liberal to be coming from Pentax.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
  • AF module like K-5 (with better light color sensor) but with a more powerful center sensor: f/2.8 cross type and smaller area.
Smaller, f/2.8 centre sensor would be a must.
I also agree that the other sensor areas should be smaller but I'd find a solution which has them all crammed into the centre problematic. It would impose a "focus & recompose" technique which I'm not fond of for multiple reasons.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Make a commitment to K-mount glass and that possible electronic VF cameras (mirrorless or not) will fully support it.
It may work very well to give people the option to share the same set of lenses between two bodies; one for serious shooting (bigger FF body) and one for having with you almost all the time (smaller mirrorless version).

01-20-2012, 06:39 AM   #2240
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by gazonk Quote
Tell that to Apple
Apple is now having a tough year and it started last year.
01-20-2012, 07:06 AM   #2241
Veteran Member
Asahiflex's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,754
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
Apple is now having a tough year and it started last year.
Yes, they are suing the hell out of Samsung (their main "business enemy" at this moment).
01-20-2012, 10:09 AM - 1 Like   #2242
Junior Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 37
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I don't think you spent nearly as much effort as me to compute an FF camera's building cost. My figure is an even conservative estimate of what Pentax can do.
You are correct, Falk.

First, let me acknowledge how much I appreciate the amazing work you have done on camera analysis.

That said, I don't think anyone here really knows how much it costs Pentax to build a camera. We can just speculate on what information is available.

The information I'm thinking about is that the K5 was thought to be too expensive when it was first released, and the same thing is now true of the Q.

When a new CaNikon is released, they know it will sell hundreds of thousands of units*, so they can source a very large order of sensors, AF units, etc.

Pentax does not have that luxury, and cannot afford to sit on a pile of unused tech because they ordered 400,000 sensors and only sold 200,000 cameras.

I think it is perfectly feasible for a theoretical FF Pentax to hit the $2250 price tag, but only after it has been on the market for a while and proven popular enough. Just like we are seeing with the K5 prices now.

If a FF camera is released, the starting price will likely be closer to $3,000 unless they are able to massively shave costs in some way. (No weather-sealing, plastic build) However, it seems to me that Pentax focuses on maintaining superb build-quality as part of their brand image, so they would not dilute that with a sub-standard FF camera.

That's why I think your cost figures are not likely to be a reality (as much as I would like them to be)


*Interestingly, the new Nikon 1 which competes directly with the Q is similarly priced (though it has a slightly bigger sensor if I'm not mistaken). I attribute this to the fact that Nikon isn't as confident in the market for the ultracompact IL category, and therefore couldn't get the same bulk discounts it would receive for an SLR.
01-20-2012, 10:42 AM   #2243
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by rjcassara Quote
You are correct, Falk.

First, let me acknowledge how much I appreciate the amazing work you have done on camera analysis.

That said, I don't think anyone here really knows how much it costs Pentax to build a camera. We can just speculate on what information is available.

The information I'm thinking about is that the K5 was thought to be too expensive when it was first released, and the same thing is now true of the Q.

When a new CaNikon is released, they know it will sell hundreds of thousands of units*, so they can source a very large order of sensors, AF units, etc.

Pentax does not have that luxury, and cannot afford to sit on a pile of unused tech because they ordered 400,000 sensors and only sold 200,000 cameras.

I think it is perfectly feasible for a theoretical FF Pentax to hit the $2250 price tag, but only after it has been on the market for a while and proven popular enough. Just like we are seeing with the K5 prices now.

If a FF camera is released, the starting price will likely be closer to $3,000 unless they are able to massively shave costs in some way. (No weather-sealing, plastic build) However, it seems to me that Pentax focuses on maintaining superb build-quality as part of their brand image, so they would not dilute that with a sub-standard FF camera.

That's why I think your cost figures are not likely to be a reality (as much as I would like them to be)


*Interestingly, the new Nikon 1 which competes directly with the Q is similarly priced (though it has a slightly bigger sensor if I'm not mistaken). I attribute this to the fact that Nikon isn't as confident in the market for the ultracompact IL category, and therefore couldn't get the same bulk discounts it would receive for an SLR.
I'm not sure if popularity should be an issue. compared to digital MF cameras, I don't think that Pentax was more popular than Phase-One, Mamiya, etc... all it took was for Pentax to sell the 645D for half the cost of a normal market price for an MF camera. and it took off from there.

considering how much the normal selling price of MF's are around $20,000 or more, you must wonder how Pentax still manage to take a lot of profit and basically ran over the competition in that market segment rather than lose. one must wonder how much the real cost of sensors. surely MF sensors are expensive than FF. but is sensor cost production difference between the two are reduced by half? or is it more? can we say that if a standard FF dslr camera from Canon or Nikon costs around $3,500-$,4,000, does it also make sense the a FF dlsr could only really cost at around $,1800 to $2,000? I would believe so if anyone could still recall the A850.

I don't believe that the camera should be crippled inorder to become cheap or affordable, just look at the 645D. it would profit with great specs. such high price of the FF cameras is only a way of maximizing the company's profit. also, they can afford to do so to bulk up the price, especially if there is no real competition.

01-20-2012, 11:21 AM   #2244
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,139
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
I'm not sure if popularity should be an issue. compared to digital MF cameras, I don't think that Pentax was more popular than Phase-One, Mamiya, etc... all it took was for Pentax to sell the 645D for half the cost of a normal market price for an MF camera. and it took off from there..
Thats a very different story. Pentax is a megacorporation compared to the likes of Hasselblad et al selling litterally millions of cameras a year.
01-20-2012, 11:59 AM   #2245
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Thats a very different story. Pentax is a megacorporation compared to the likes of Hasselblad et al selling litterally millions of cameras a year.
so they shouldn't have a problem selling FF dslrs cheap then.
01-20-2012, 12:25 PM   #2246
New Member




Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 10
Nikon staff numbers in 2010 : approx. 26,000
Pentax staff numbers in 2005 : approx. 1,700
Hasselblad staff numbers in 2012 : < 60
01-20-2012, 01:26 PM   #2247
Site Supporter
markku55's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Hanko, Finland
Posts: 195
These figures might be right or not, the main point is that the producers MUST make profit computed all the items/sales together. Most of the profit will come from cheaper/volyme products, and in this area Pentax have not made any success.
A FF body would be a really nice thing for the majority of the present Pentax owners, but may not be like that for the new generation of photographers.
In my opinnion Pentax needs more than only one new body/solution to be in the market in future.
The old ff lenses needs to be reconstructed for FF digital body, and I would not forget the big group of APS-C users, because not all of them will step upwards to FF. Honestly, new technology of APS-C sensors is sooo gooood that I do not actually think that the FF is really needed for future, may be still, but not after 2-5 years.
01-20-2012, 02:13 PM - 1 Like   #2248
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by SMC-man Quote
Nikon staff numbers in 2010 : approx. 26,000
Pentax staff numbers in 2005 : approx. 1,700
Nikon revenue 2011: $10.7 Billion (24,000 employees)
Ricoh revenue 2011: $23.4 Billion (109,000 employees)


.
01-20-2012, 02:24 PM   #2249
Pentaxian
builttospill's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Utah, Idaho
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,665
QuoteOriginally posted by markku55 Quote
These figures might be right or not, the main point is that the producers MUST make profit computed all the items/sales together. Most of the profit will come from cheaper/volyme products, and in this area Pentax have not made any success.
From my understanding camera companies really don't make profit from their cameras (the 645D looks like an exception to this, but maybe not after how many years it took for development!), but instead from their lenses. I'm sure Pentax does quite well from the sale of their Limiteds. Now imagine how much money they'd be making from FA Limited sales once a FF DSLR is released.

QuoteOriginally posted by markku55 Quote
Honestly, new technology of APS-C sensors is sooo gooood that I do not actually think that the FF is really needed for future, may be still, but not after 2-5 years.
Honestly, new technology of FF sensors is sooo goooood I do not actually think APS-C sensors should be compared, nor do I think APS-C sensors will be needed for the future. This isn't just directed at you, but I think many people overlook the advances in technology on a larger scale. If it's better on APS-C, it'll be that much better of FF, and that much better on 645, etc. The only benefit I see with APS-C is what Pentax has been able to do with keeping small compact bodies and lenses available.
01-20-2012, 02:37 PM   #2250
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,139
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
so they shouldn't have a problem selling FF dslrs cheap then.
An FF camera face a completely different competition. Pentax is a small fish in the FF pond realistically not being able to sell as many cameras as the competition. In contrast, Pentax is a whale in the MF digital market probably selling more cameras than the rest of the competition put together.
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!
aps-c, bodies, body, dslr, full-frame, lenses, lineup, pentax, system, users
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
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
News Regarding Advertising on PentaxForums.com: An Official Statement Adam Site Suggestions and Help 5 03-24-2010 07:37 PM
Official: New DSLR Body is Coming; Full Frame Model is Under Planning! RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 78 08-04-2008 06:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:59 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.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