Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-21-2011, 09:58 AM   #346
Loyal Site Supporter
bwDraco's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: New York
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,007
QuoteOriginally posted by lurchlarson Quote
Now that I think about it Panasonic has always been mirrorless...
Panasonic had two Four Thirds System DSLR cameras, the Lumix DMC-L1 and DMC-L10, both of which shared parts with Olympus models. The former was available with a high-performance "kit" lens, the Leica D Vario-Elmarit 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5 (!) ASPH. lens, which made up a substantial portion of the $2000 price of the kit.

--DragonLord

10-21-2011, 09:59 AM   #347
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 181
IMO Pentax should continue to refine APS design...maybe the Q is their best new direction, but I'd prefer to see a compact APS with optical (bright frame) viewfinder rather than faux DSLR.
10-21-2011, 11:40 AM   #348
ogl
Pentaxian
ogl's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Siberia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,114
QuoteOriginally posted by richard balonglong Quote
Getting a reply from the company is great news. hehe. Well, the greatest news would be if they really listen and care about the FF system.
I'm got the answers from Pentax USA...
10-21-2011, 11:41 AM   #349
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by Frogfish Quote
Actually I think that is the one lens they have really messed up .... how can you offer a macro lens without an aperture ring ?
That's a valid negative. I also see the lack of a focus limiter a problem.

However, this lens was not designed to be used with extension tubes and other devices to increase magnification. They still offer the older 100mm macro for those purposes. It's a lens that is suppose to be used directly with the camera and be highly weather resistant, which is an important feature with a macro lens I think.

I use my lens with a 1.5x teleconverter when I want more magnification. It works quite well and I have full aperture control. I do think pentax should release some weather resistant extension tubes that pass along aperture information. I sadly don't think that will ever happen though.

10-21-2011, 11:59 AM   #350
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by sandilands Quote
... Frankly years of neglect have left Pentax as a marginal player with only limited success in some niche markets and their installed base.
Thank you, 18-month plan.

QuoteQuote:
Copying Nikon and Canon will get them nowhere. Innovation and quality optics will.
Barring a very significant technological breakthrough that only Ricoh/Pentax is privy to, they will still basically need to play in the same space, with about the same level of technology. You say 'copy', but isn't the K-5 a 'copy' of the D7000, and vise-versa, effectively? They are doing in the aps-c space what you don't think they should do in the FF space. ('copy' is also used as a bad word for 'compete'.)


QuoteQuote:
A possible positioning strategy for the Ricoh- Pentax Imaging Company would be to place the Pentax brand at the high end and specialty markets (underwater, 645, etc.). Use the Ricoh brand for P&S, ILC, entry level DSLR, and as an interesting idea, a test bed for innovative technology. In this scenario I could see the introduction of a full frame pro level camera, but it certainly shouldn't be their highest priority. They have more significant competitive gaps than carving out market share in the very small Canon 5DmkII space.
You're basically saying that it's easier to innovate and compete in the aps-c tier. It's not. Pentax competes in aps-c DSLR with more players, and with the encroachment of mirrorless, even more, now. Companies like Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung are going to almost be able to squeeze the lower-end aps-c DSLR out of existance.

QuoteQuote:
My advice (for what it is worth) to Ricoh-Pentax is to impress the market (like Sony has) with breakthrough quality improvements of the optical path in the larger APS-C market. The K5 is an excellent platform for this strategy. Their R&D dollars (or Yen) will be best spent on industry leading resolution, noise reduction, low light autofocus, and K-mount lenses. Maybe at some time in the future, FF will be their biggest competitive disadvantage. I hope they can survive until it is.
This ^^ is another 18-month plan - basically wait, wait, until an obvious/easy decision presents itself. By the time that path becomes easy, anyone can take it, and you have just left yourself in the middle of (or behind) the pack... again.

One of my worries is this - what would Ricoh's incentive be to invest a lot in a tier that's being entered by an invasive technology (mirrorless) being delivered by increasingly aggressive and competent players (Fuji, Samsung, Panasonic, even Oly.)

A Pentax DSLR doesn't have the big three to compete against, they have the big three plus everyone else who can make a DSLR, SLT or mirrorless camera and a set of lenses.

If Ricoh tries to enter mirrorless in a big way, they may find that retaining K-mount is a drawback, because it keeps their kits large and unwieldy compared to the other mirrorless players. Thus, they drop the K-mount idea for their new mirrorless bodies.

While this is happening, sensor costs decrease and wafer yields increase, making the $1500 sweet spot margin-freindly for a FF body - thus squeezing aps-c DSLR from the top, also.

The truly size-conscious folks are buying these new mirrorless bodies with advanced EVFs and blazing-fast on-sensor PDAF. At some point, Pentax's 5% of a shrinking aps-c DSLR market starts looking anemic to Ricoh. And if they have no FF K-mount sales, because they chose not to go that route back in 2012... Maybe goodbye, K-mount.

If K-mount is the major asset Ricoh purchased here, and it is, they won't let it die on the vine. An 18-month ROI is not required by them.


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 10-21-2011 at 12:32 PM.
10-21-2011, 01:03 PM   #351
Pentaxian
v5planet's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,904
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
One of my worries is this - what would Ricoh's incentive be to invest a lot in a tier that's being entered by an invasive technology (mirrorless) being delivered by increasingly aggressive and competent players (Fuji, Samsung, Panasonic, even Oly.)
This is definitely an interesting train of thought, and one that I think you've taken to one set of its potential outcomes quite convincingly. The threat of a two-way pinch on the APS-C dslr format is quite real, especially as the expansion of the EVIL market paints the K-mount as a potential liability for Pentax's chance of growing in the upcoming mirrorless revolution. We talk about that one a lot and it's not surprising, I suppose.

The one I haven't really given much thought to though is the pinch from the higher end. Do we have any stats on the cost of manufacturing FF sensors over time and their projected costs into the future? If we do indeed expect those costs to come down to the point where a FF Pentax doesn't cost much more than an APS-C K-5 did at launch, don't we lose the upgrade path we're claiming FF would provide new customers? Correct me if I'm wrong, Jay, but the picture you painted to me sounds like APS-C will be absorbed by the mirrorless market (very reasonable), and that in order to keep up with the competitors PRIC will need to create a new mount for that system. That if the K-mount is to survive, Ricoh must be forward thinking and plan to exploit the expected cost reductions on FF sensor fabrication. At that point you will have 4 separate tiers, each with their own mounts, acting as separate, island systems bound only by brand name: the Q (if it's still around), the mirrorless APS-C mount, K-mount as a fully FF mount, and somewhere up in the stratosphere, the 645 system.

If one of the strengths of having FF is being able to tell people stepping up from P&S with their first dslr (or future equivalent) "this is where you can go when you grow up", how do we market Pentax as the brand to stick with if stepping up requires people to ditch their mirrorless lenses?

Last edited by v5planet; 10-21-2011 at 01:12 PM.
10-21-2011, 01:44 PM   #352
Veteran Member
Frogfish's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 4,490
QuoteOriginally posted by alexcox Quote
What is the point of Pentax making a full-frame camera when they make the 645D (better than any full-frame camera from Nikon or Canon) and non-digital 645s are inexpensive?
Most of my lenses are for APS-C so I'll gain no benefit unless I buy a lot of expensive new glass, which I can't afford to do.
Better, perhaps, for Pentax and Ricoh to concentrate on improving the K-5, for example by introducing a better video codec than Motion JPEG.
Come on Alex. Just think about it .... how on earth could you use a 645D / 645 in the same way that people use APS-C/FF ? Answer = you can't.
10-21-2011, 02:23 PM   #353
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by v5planet Quote
This is definitely an interesting train of thought, and one that I think you've taken to one set of its potential outcomes quite convincingly. The threat of a two-way pinch on the APS-C dslr format is quite real, especially as the expansion of the EVIL market paints the K-mount as a potential liability for Pentax's chance of growing in the upcoming mirrorless revolution. We talk about that one a lot and it's not surprising, I suppose.

The one I haven't really given much thought to though is the pinch from the higher end. Do we have any stats on the cost of manufacturing FF sensors over time and their projected costs into the future?
I know Falk has done some thinking on that. At the launch of the first FF camera, the end cost for a FF sensor was around 20x an aps-c sensor. I've heard that's now down to less than 10x. Thom Hogan has told me that the D3x has a sensor that only costs $450 more than the one in the D7000. So, right there, add $450 to the cost of the $1100 K-5, and you have a $1550 FF camera

Or course you need more than the sensor, which adds costs, but that's also a previous-gen FF sensor. The delta between the new 24MP aps-c FF sony sensors are probably even less.

QuoteQuote:
If we do indeed expect those costs to come down to the point where a FF Pentax doesn't cost much more than an APS-C K-5 did at launch, don't we lose the upgrade path we're claiming FF would provide new customers? Correct me if I'm wrong, Jay, but the picture you painted to me sounds like APS-C will be absorbed by the mirrorless market (very reasonable),
Actually I suspect that the upper-end aps-c market will remain pretty healthy for a period of time, as it could maintain a position of 'upgrade' from most mirrorless.

The problem there for Pentax is that the low-end brings in a lot of sales. K-x was the reason they were in the black last year. If that goes away, the upper-end aps-c-only niche becomes kinda clausterphobic if you're Ricoh, and you want to sell K-mount lenses.


QuoteQuote:
...and that in order to keep up with the competitors PRIC will need to create a new mount for that system. That if the K-mount is to survive, Ricoh must be forward thinking and plan to exploit the expected cost reductions on FF sensor fabrication. At that point you will have 4 separate tiers, each with their own mounts, acting as separate, island systems bound only by brand name: the Q (if it's still around), the mirrorless APS-C mount, K-mount as a fully FF mount, and somewhere up in the stratosphere, the 645 system.

If one of the strengths of having FF is being able to tell people stepping up from P&S with their first dslr (or future equivalent) "this is where you can go when you grow up", how do we market Pentax as the brand to stick with if stepping up requires people to ditch their mirrorless lenses?
Another way to look at it: What incentive would shooters have to ditch their mirrorless for an upgrade to an upper-end Pentax aps-c DSLR if that's as far as they can go with Pentax K-mount? Someone really moving up would want to see a tricked-out $1200 aps-c body as a replacement for their $850 mirrorless, and then have the possibility of jumping to a $1500 bare-bones FF, then maybe an uber-nice $2500 FF, and then maybe a fully-pro $4000 FF... all accepting the same lenses. If they see a stalled upgrade path, why invest in that mount, when they also see Sigma/Tamron/Tokina/VL slowly abandoning it also? (No matter how sweet that aps-c K-3 is.....)



.


Last edited by jsherman999; 10-21-2011 at 03:33 PM.
10-21-2011, 02:27 PM   #354
New Member




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5
The Full Frame Market Dilemma for Pentax

Funny thing, I had been thinking about this.
Nikon’s FF DX3, at 24MP is around $8 grand. Pentax comes out with the 645D for $10 grand. Pentax had a long chain of R&D into the 645D, a lot of starts and stops, a lot of expense to recover. Still, if Pentax can come out with a medium format for only 25% more than Nikon’s FF, imagine what Pentax could do in FF.
Pentax under Hoya really took their eyes off of full frame; most of the newer production glass is APS-C only.
Here is the BIG problem for Pentax. The 645D uses a Kodak sensor. Kodak recently took out loans just to maintain operations. We are probably going to loose Kodak. I hate to see it but it is what it is.
Considering the pixel density of the 16MP Sony sensor in the K5, that same density in full frame would come out to around 40 MegaPixels.
How is Pentax Ricoh going to sell 40MP 645’s when they introduce a K3,4 whatever, with the same resolution?
The 645D sensor is a 40MP CCD. As far as I know, everything FF and smaller is CMOS.
If Pentax really wanted to one-up the competition, a CCD full frame would do it.
The R&D cost would be overwhelming. Sony had to amortize the 16MP CMOS by selling it to Nikon and Pentax, besides their own.
CMOS is preferred over CCD due to lower power consumption, however, by all reports Pentax did an amazing job with the 645D power longevity even using the same battery as the K5.
We can be pretty sure that Nikon and Canon have 40MP FF’s in the lab already. Who knows, Sony may have one ready to ship.
But if Pentax Ricoh cranked out a 36mm x 24mm 40MP CCD, imagine the dynamic range. You get the picture.
Item 4 of the Pentaxforums letter to Pentax about APS-C sensors “out-resolving current lenses”, is the single biggest stumbling block and the best argument for full frame I can think of.
I use the modern Zeiss Distagon 28mm on a K5. It is amazing. My Tamron zoom looks like it has Vaseline smeared on the lens when compared. At 28mm the Zeiss out-resolves the Tamron at 35mm. The thing is, the Zeiss’ resolution is pretty much at the K5’s resolution. I have a hunch that an APS-C sensor at 25 MegaPixels would out-resolve any glass, even Leica (bite my tongue).
That little APS-C sensor magnifies everything. Chromatic aberration, everything.
Yeah I’m ready for a full frame. Sell it for $3 grand and every publication would glow about it. And just to show em you mean business, leave off the sissy GPS, Bluetooth crap. Maybe even Zeiss will come back.

Here's a thought, just buy Zeiss. Pentax and Zeiss were in bed once before, just consummate.
You want genuine Zeiss? Buy a Pentax.

Last edited by MoldyJohn; 10-21-2011 at 03:05 PM. Reason: additional thought
10-21-2011, 04:26 PM   #355
Site Supporter
Clinton's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,821
To reiterate a previous thread: Why is it the APS-C fan peoples have to hate on us that want a FF Pentax? Its not like we are campaigning for an end to APS-C and hating on APS-C.

You don't want FF? fine, don't buy the FF camera. Hell's bells, stick with the K-5 for Pete's sake, it's a fantastic camera. Better yet, wait for FF to come out, and buy the K-5s that some of us will be selling.

I'm predicting a good 1-2 more pages before this thread veers off the original topic entirely (The topic of @Adam and the owner of Pentaxeros.com who rock for putting this letter together ) and moves into the regularly scheduled two minute hate for FF Pentax.

I would like to hope we can steer this topic back to the OP. There are plenty of other threads itching to be revived about why Pentax shouldn't go FF.

Last edited by Clinton; 10-21-2011 at 07:47 PM.
10-21-2011, 04:42 PM   #356
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Taylor, Texas
Posts: 1,017
For me $1500 generally is the threshold on camera bodies. Since I don't use zoom lenses, I need money for lenses also. I shoot a K5, EP3, GXR, Fuji X100, and DP1/2. I've been through every iteration of K from K100 to K10 to K20, to K5. I also had a Kx briefly but it was just too plastic for me. I've been very loyal to Pentax.

If Pentax releases a $1500 Full Frame then I might consider buying it at some point when the K5 gets older. $2500, no way because I just don't care too much for the DSLR format. Now if Pentax released something in a Kmount similar to an M9 then I would pay $3000-$3500 for the body with no auto focus. DSLR, forget it given their size. Of course that's just my pipe dream and I know it's never going to happen.

I'm almost certain to buy the upcoming Fuji interchangeable lens camera. I'm debating between that and the Nex 7. I prefer mirrorless so I wish Pentax would go in that direction. But it's not a big deal because other companies have really beaten them to the punch in that market anyway. In all likelihood I will skip the next Pentax DSLR regardless of Format. The K5 is a great camera and I just have absolutely very little interest in a Full Frame camera since I don't print larger than 16 X 20.
10-21-2011, 04:52 PM   #357
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Taylor, Texas
Posts: 1,017
I might add, I'm not hating on Full Framers. I really hope Pentax releases one because it will tell me that my invest in Pentax wasn't wasted.

I'm very hopeful for Pentax, especially after using the GXR. Ricoh understands photography and photographer's cameras. I don't think the last folks who owned the company really cared or did.. The GXR is the most user friendly camera I've ever owned. I just sold my XZ1 with the intent of getting a GRD IV.

In the long run may not stay with Pentax (unless they have a serious mirrorless release) but I think the company is in very good hands with Ricoh. Hopefully that future will include a Full Frame camera for everyone who wants one!!
10-21-2011, 05:40 PM   #358
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,236
QuoteOriginally posted by stanleyk Quote
For me $1500 generally is the threshold on camera bodies. Since I don't use zoom lenses, I need money for lenses also. I shoot a K5, EP3, GXR, Fuji X100, and DP1/2. I've been through every iteration of K from K100 to K10 to K20, to K5. I also had a Kx briefly but it was just too plastic for me. I've been very loyal to Pentax.

If Pentax releases a $1500 Full Frame then I might consider buying it at some point when the K5 gets older. $2500, no way because I just don't care too much for the DSLR format. Now if Pentax released something in a Kmount similar to an M9 then I would pay $3000-$3500 for the body with no auto focus. DSLR, forget it given their size. Of course that's just my pipe dream and I know it's never going to happen.

I'm almost certain to buy the upcoming Fuji interchangeable lens camera. I'm debating between that and the Nex 7. I prefer mirrorless so I wish Pentax would go in that direction. But it's not a big deal because other companies have really beaten them to the punch in that market anyway. In all likelihood I will skip the next Pentax DSLR regardless of Format. The K5 is a great camera and I just have absolutely very little interest in a Full Frame camera since I don't print larger than 16 X 20.
Why put a limit on the camera body cost when you have so many different systems? That extra $500-1500 can buy things those systems can't achieve due to physical limitations. Why would you need, or rather want, a fuji-ILC or nex7 on top of the quality gear you already have? The only things I see you gaining are advancements from newer technology, differences in ergonomics, or in lens to a point. While this is all opinion and what people feel good with doing, I see having too many systems as diluting my tools. I would have a bunch of tools that can basically accomplish the same thing and miss out on stuff I can achieve with more specialized equipment.

Many of us are not that interested in mirrorless, or rather we have some interest, but not as our primary equipment. I wouldn't mind a nice mirrorless system for photos, but with very powerful video mode. I just don't have the means or enough interest to get one.

Pentax full-frame would be something different. It's all about physical differences that make it appealing. More use out of my prime lenses, depth of field consideration, large viewfinder, and similar points... I do like small camera bodies, but I also keep the word small in perspective when I use it. The K-7/K-5 are special because they are small for the level of functionality they have. I see Pentax making a full-frame with that same ideal. Even the 645D, for what it is, is pretty compact. I had a chance to try one out once.

The combination of a Pentax APS-C and full-frame with the lenses I have is a powerful combination. Maybe it's just appealing to someone who has more than one camera body of the same type?


QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
To reiterate a previous thread: Why is it the APS-C fan peoples have to hate on us that want a FF Pentax? Its not like we are campaigning for an end to apsc and hating on apsc.

You don't want FF? fine, don't buy the FF camera. Hell's bells, stick with the K-5 for Pete's sake, it's a fantastic camera. Better yet, wait for FF to come out, and buy the K-5s that some of us will be selling.

I'm predicting a good 1-2 more pages before this thread veers off the original topic entirely (The topic of @Adam and the owner of Pentaxeros.com who rock for putting this letter together ) and moves into the regularly scheduled two minute hate for FF Pentax.

I would like to hope we can steer this topic back to the OP. There are plenty of other threads itching to be revived about why Pentax shouldn't go FF.
I think one of the big reasons was that resources that could go into APS-C would be diverted to full-frame. Considering camera bodies I think full-frame would actually help APS-C. Pentax would probably move down their technology to APS-C, so successors of the k-5 would benefit from larger and more powerful AF systems and such. The only potential negative would be a size increase, but we are still talking Pentax here...

Another potential negative would be lens resources. Under Hoya management, Pentax lens releases were somewhat lackluster. Well, I liked the 35mm f2.4 in a way, but overall... meh. With Ricoh, we just don't know if adding full-frame to the mix would hurt or help matters. We might just see more choice without any discernible negatives. I think it's kind of sad Pentax had lenses like the FA* 85mm f1.4, but it doesn't offer it anymore. It's a full-frame style focal length, but it works just as nicely on APS-C.


QuoteOriginally posted by MoldyJohn Quote
Funny thing, I had been thinking about this.
Nikon’s FF DX3, at 24MP is around $8 grand. Pentax comes out with the 645D for $10 grand. Pentax had a long chain of R&D into the 645D, a lot of starts and stops, a lot of expense to recover. Still, if Pentax can come out with a medium format for only 25% more than Nikon’s FF, imagine what Pentax could do in FF.
Pentax under Hoya really took their eyes off of full frame; most of the newer production glass is APS-C only.
Here is the BIG problem for Pentax. The 645D uses a Kodak sensor. Kodak recently took out loans just to maintain operations. We are probably going to loose Kodak. I hate to see it but it is what it is.
Considering the pixel density of the 16MP Sony sensor in the K5, that same density in full frame would come out to around 40 MegaPixels.
How is Pentax Ricoh going to sell 40MP 645’s when they introduce a K3,4 whatever, with the same resolution?
The 645D sensor is a 40MP CCD. As far as I know, everything FF and smaller is CMOS.
If Pentax really wanted to one-up the competition, a CCD full frame would do it.
The R&D cost would be overwhelming. Sony had to amortize the 16MP CMOS by selling it to Nikon and Pentax, besides their own.
CMOS is preferred over CCD due to lower power consumption, however, by all reports Pentax did an amazing job with the 645D power longevity even using the same battery as the K5.
We can be pretty sure that Nikon and Canon have 40MP FF’s in the lab already. Who knows, Sony may have one ready to ship.
But if Pentax Ricoh cranked out a 36mm x 24mm 40MP CCD, imagine the dynamic range. You get the picture.
Item 4 of the Pentaxforums letter to Pentax about APS-C sensors “out-resolving current lenses”, is the single biggest stumbling block and the best argument for full frame I can think of.
I use the modern Zeiss Distagon 28mm on a K5. It is amazing. My Tamron zoom looks like it has Vaseline smeared on the lens when compared. At 28mm the Zeiss out-resolves the Tamron at 35mm. The thing is, the Zeiss’ resolution is pretty much at the K5’s resolution. I have a hunch that an APS-C sensor at 25 MegaPixels would out-resolve any glass, even Leica (bite my tongue).
That little APS-C sensor magnifies everything. Chromatic aberration, everything.
Yeah I’m ready for a full frame. Sell it for $3 grand and every publication would glow about it. And just to show em you mean business, leave off the sissy GPS, Bluetooth crap. Maybe even Zeiss will come back.

Here's a thought, just buy Zeiss. Pentax and Zeiss were in bed once before, just consummate.
You want genuine Zeiss? Buy a Pentax.
You make good points, especially about the 645D being a value for what it is. However, I think there is somewhat of a shift in the mega-pixel race. Just look at the Canon 1D X with its 18MP sensor. Not sure if Sony will follow or keep forcing more and more pixels into the same area though.
10-21-2011, 06:48 PM   #359
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Adelaide, SA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 273
One other small point:

I noticed that Australia's top 3 year tertiary photography qualification specified that the students were required to have a FF DSLR and listed Canon, Nikon & Sony only for this reason.
No Pentax or Olympus.
10-21-2011, 07:22 PM - 1 Like   #360
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,791
There's no such thing as a bare bones FF. Not at the sensor price points.

If the sensor costs $600 alone, that's a minimum $2,000 for a body if you include all the other inputs + a viable profit margin. At any price point over $1,000 the potential market drops by about 50% for every $100 above $1,000. You wind up with an aggregate market about 5% of your total gross revenues from your APS-C line.

But...you also lose customers if you skimp on features. So you get a $1,600 FF but it has not very good AF (compared to a D700) and no SR (to save on size). It's less rugged, and maybe no WR (to keep warranty costs down). 3 FPS to save on size of the added circuitry, and so on.

And you keep lens prices down to keep the total package cost reasonable, so no constant 2.8's, only constant f/4's, right? At which point you lose a lot of bird and sports/action shooters.

So what you've gained in absolute market share in going bare bones you've lost in discrete segments. That's the price/value dilemma. Once you go premium price you have to go all the way with features at least comparable to the competition. The competition is the Nikon D700 and/or the Alpha A900. That's what a Pentax FF will require in terms of size/price/features to be competitive with enough customers.

All Canon has to do to destroy you is sell 1 EOS-1D X and take its profit margins forcing you to sell 7 Pentax FF K-1's to return the same margins per body. If you only sell 6 your shareholders suffer, at 5 your assembly line shuts down. Sony with the A850 tried to compete on price from a larger installed base than Pentax and they saw that price was NOT the determinant in sales of camera bodies over $1,000.....features was the determinant. That is what draws the consumer in. The situation Sony found was that a sub-$2,000 FF body attracted pretty much no Canon or Nikon customers. Sony would have bankrupted the camera division going down that path. And for every Sony customer looking at the $1,850 Alpha 850 there were 10 customers buying a $6,000 D3x and 30 buying a D700 at $2,450.

Heck, there were 2 buying the Alpha 900! So Sony gained itself $300 per unit more by killing the "market share" A850. If even half of those chased away by the $300 price difference left for Canikon, Sony still got more than it would have otherwise per unit. Sony proved that it was not possible to have a low-end FF and still stay profitable

And Sony makes the sensors.

So the bare bones option business math doesn't work. If Pentax gets in the FF game its going to be at the same price points and features as the big boys. And it will, for technical reasons, have to be a camera body as big as the D700 or A900. I suspect that Pentax has FF skunkworks going already, but the financial outlook for a camera that expensive without moving market share from Canikon is pretty much a deal killer. When a price war between Canikon starts to drive down FF costs, then, maybe, Pentax can get in and make its current user base happy whereas right now it stands no chance of making Canikon users happier by switching. That's not going to happen.

Don't get me going on lens development.

And...that letter really said...nothing. It said thanks, we have R&D, they do a lot of stuff, we want to be active in many market segments, we listen to our customer (duh!), we are part of Ricoh, and we'll send your nice letter upstairs.

I write these types of responses every week!

Last edited by Aristophanes; 10-21-2011 at 07:30 PM.
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 04:48 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