Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-16-2011, 10:48 AM   #1231
Veteran Member
MrPetkus's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 388
QuoteOriginally posted by jeverettfine Quote
Does a full frame sensor cost significantly more? Why should it cost 4K or more? Wouldn't Pentax be able to price one in the 2-3 K area and have the most affordable FF pro-body on the market? It would give Canikon a big headache.
I love all the crop selectivity discussed above. How much would all of that add to the final cost of the body? Pentax has a chance to build in some capabilities that no one else has and take advantage of of their current lens line up and the legacy lenses as well.
Only the high-end FF cameras cost ~$3-5k more than a semi-pro APS-C. The more pedestrian professional FF cameras cost on average $1k more than their APS-C ilk. These include the D700, 5DM2, and A900.

But maybe I got you wrong - are you suggesting instead that Pentax should release the equivalent of a D3s for $2-3k?

11-16-2011, 11:12 AM   #1232
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by jeverettfine Quote
Does a full frame sensor cost significantly more? Why should it cost 4K or more? Wouldn't Pentax be able to price one in the 2-3 K area and have the most affordable FF pro-body on the market? It would give Canikon a big headache.
I love all the crop selectivity discussed above. How much would all of that add to the final cost of the body? Pentax has a chance to build in some capabilities that no one else has and take advantage of of their current lens line up and the legacy lenses as well.

The sensor used in the $7500 FF D3x is only $450 more than the sensor in the $1000 aps-c D7000, and that's the last-gen sensor's delta. The sensors coming out now will have less of a difference, and when the 300mm wafer really gets adopted, the yield costs should go down (theoretically) to only 2x to 3x the cost of an aps-c sensor.

So, an $80 aps-c K-3 sensor could be replaced by a $200 FF sensor in the K-1. Of course, there are other additional costs that go into a D700-level body, but Pentax (and everyone else using the next-gen FF sensors) will be able to retain some pretty nice margins on these cameras for a while, maybe a long time. ie: K-1 will not be sold for only $120 more than the K-3 - additional costs will be added in to cover the AF, other R&D, and to pad a nice 'FF margin'. A $2500 K-1 is a real possibility, and an attractive one for Ricoh, specially when high-margin lens sales will be pumped up also as a result of the FF introduction.

When sensors get really cheap, a $1500 FF Pentax is a possibility in the coming years. Of course if Ricoh had not already started on the FF lens roadmap in 2012, they won't be able to take full advantage of that nirvana-era


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 11-16-2011 at 11:18 AM.
11-16-2011, 12:17 PM - 1 Like   #1233
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
[...]the yield costs should go down (theoretically) to only 2x to 3x the cost of an aps-c sensor.
It cannot be 2x, because that's lower than the area difference. With a zero-defect technology it would be close to 2.5x, I believe; but in reality the difference will be significantly higher.(Faloneye could make better estimates - he actually did it some time ago).
Adopting a bigger wafer afaik won't help increasing the yields, tough it does overall decrease the production cost.
11-16-2011, 12:41 PM   #1234
Senior Member




Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 118
QuoteOriginally posted by jeverettfine Quote
Does a full frame sensor cost significantly more? Why should it cost 4K or more? Wouldn't Pentax be able to price one in the 2-3 K area and have the most affordable FF pro-body on the market? It would give Canikon a big headache.
I love all the crop selectivity discussed above. How much would all of that add to the final cost of the body? Pentax has a chance to build in some capabilities that no one else has and take advantage of of their current lens line up and the legacy lenses as well.
I suspect projected sales volume has a lot more to do with retail pricing than production cost of sensors (not manufactured by Pentax anyways).

As many smart people here have pointed out, APS-C DSLRs are going to be sandwiched between full-frame and entry EVILs. I think it's a testament that EVIL tech has gotten that good, especially with contrast detect AF/MF assist. I prefer using it myself and have had no problem using lcd screen under bright sun (just a matter of inconvenience).

K-5 may be the last APS-C DSLR I will have ever bought.


Last edited by jackseh; 11-16-2011 at 12:58 PM.
11-16-2011, 01:31 PM   #1235
Pentaxian
Emacs's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Moscow
Posts: 1,221
QuoteOriginally posted by jackseh Quote
K-5 may be the last APS-C DSLR I will have ever bought.
It's definitely for me. I'm selling the K-5 which turned to be extremely unreliable for me (buggy SR, AF that misses 9 out of 10 shots with 77 and 31 limiteds wide open, inconsistent AF with 15Ltd). Selling 15Ltd as well. Getting the nex-5n and evf (+ VL heliar 12mm) instead. But if the pentax will produce FF body I'll buy it. It may be either DSLR or mirrorless with official fully automatic adaptor. But I won't buy pentax SLR K-mount lens anymore.

I'm waiting some FF in mirrorless body. It may be NEX-9 with shifted microlenses, Leica M10 if it will support EVF, etc.

Last edited by Emacs; 11-16-2011 at 01:36 PM.
11-16-2011, 01:57 PM - 2 Likes   #1236
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by Emacs Quote
But if the pentax will produce FF body I'll buy it.
...Please don't...
11-16-2011, 02:15 PM   #1237
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
APS-H preferences:

  • 16 megapixel will give better Image Quality then on APS-C.
  • Shake Reduction for APS-H is less invasive to the construction then Full Frame is.
  • I prefer the silent shutter and that is more easily to design for APS-H then for FF.
  • Having a crop, will make benefit to long lenses. With APS-H a 300mm lens is about the same as 250mm is on APS-C where for a FF camera you have to bring 400mm lens.
  • I do prefer 4:3 sensor as said, it does benefit from using more space off the circle. A 28x21mm sensor would be great.
  • More of our current DA lenses can perform to a high level on APS-H then having to complain about soft corners and vignetting on a FF sensor.
  • Big bright OVF is cheaper to make for this smaller APS-H sensor.
  • I do prefer a fully functioned (fast image processing, 8 fps, video) and loaded with lots of futures APS-H then a FF with limited functions.
  • When an APS-H sensor is 200 $ cheaper then FF, and SR and shutter are cheaper, then this means that in shops this camera is (at least) $ 500 cheaper.

There is maybe more to this list, but a few important once are these. Having good use for most of my lenses (DA40mm, DA*55mm, FA*85mm, DA*300mm and Sigma 70-200mm) is an important one to considder.

Pentax can make a Full Frame camera for the next generation, when there are more lenses.
11-16-2011, 02:50 PM   #1238
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
  • 16 megapixel will give better Image Quality then on APS-C.
  • Shake Reduction for APS-H is less invasive to the construction then Full Frame is.
  • I prefer the silent shutter and that is more easily to design for APS-H then for FF.
  • Having a crop, will make benefit to long lenses. With APS-H a 300mm lens is about the same as 250mm is on APS-C where for a FF camera you have to bring 400mm lens.
  • I do prefer 4:3 sensor as said, it does benefit from using more space off the circle. A 28x21mm sensor would be great.
  • More of our current DA lenses can perform to a high level on APS-H then having to complain about soft corners and vignetting on a FF sensor.
  • Big bright OVF is cheaper to make for this smaller APS-H sensor.
  • I do prefer a fully functioned (fast image processing, 8 fps, video) and loaded with lots of futures APS-H then a FF with limited functions.
  • When an APS-H sensor is 200 $ cheaper then FF, and SR and shutter are cheaper, then this means that in shops this camera is (at least) $ 500 cheaper.

There is maybe more to this list, but a few important once are these. Having good use for most of my lenses (DA40mm, DA*55mm, FA*85mm, DA*300mm and Sigma 70-200mm) is an important one to considder.

Pentax can make a Full Frame camera for the next generation, when there are more lenses.
But that would mean Pentax still won't have a FF body, en that would still hold off the 'real' pro's.

I'm guessing 80% of the people who are hoping for FF don't really give much about gimmicks like video.

Moreover, with auto-cropping the DA lenses can still be used on a FF camera. It could autodetect what lens is on and apply the crop.

11-16-2011, 03:15 PM   #1239
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 9,336
On the contrary, I believe most people who would buy a FF (for over $2000) would not want to buy an unnecessarily crippled (e.g. without video or other "gimmicks") camera. They would rather buy a "fully featured" competitor's model, for the same money.

I'm afraid going with a smaller sensor (APS-H) than the competition (FF) is exactly the same mistake Olympus did, with the 4/3. The APS-H is only ~40% bigger than the APS-C, not even half the way to FF.

Last edited by Kunzite; 11-16-2011 at 03:28 PM.
11-16-2011, 03:21 PM   #1240
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
But that would mean Pentax still won't have a FF body, en that would still hold off the 'real' pro's.
Well who doesn't see that such a camera can be a great performer, isn't a pro, he is just a geargeek.

That is calling Canon 1D Mark IV not a pro camera.
11-16-2011, 03:35 PM   #1241
Pentaxian
TaoMaas's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,197
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I'm guessing 80% of the people who are hoping for FF don't really give much about gimmicks like video.
Video is not a gimmick. It's a legitimate customer base for many of Canon's FF buyers. That may not be an area where Pentax chooses to compete, but it's a significant slice of the market and it's growing.
11-16-2011, 03:53 PM   #1242
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I'm afraid going with a smaller sensor (APS-H) than the competition (FF) is exactly the same mistake Olympus did, with the 4/3. The APS-H is only ~40% bigger than the APS-C, not even half the way to FF.
Well I do want a big sensor. Can also be 3:2, but a 4:3 is fine for me. When it's 28x21mm it is 60 % larger then K-5 and with still 16 megapixel, the pixelsize goes from K-5's 4,75 micron to 6 micron, wich would give nice great hi-iso performance. The surface of such a pixel is 60 % larger then K-5.

When bigger pixels are used, like the 7 microns that are on 1Dx then you end up with 12 megapixels on that sensor. Would also be fine by me. They give stunning image quality I guess.

That should give a boost to image quality.
11-16-2011, 03:55 PM   #1243
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 302
QuoteOriginally posted by MrPetkus Quote
Only the high-end FF cameras cost ~$3-5k more than a semi-pro APS-C. The more pedestrian professional FF cameras cost on average $1k more than their APS-C ilk. These include the D700, 5DM2, and A900.

But maybe I got you wrong - are you suggesting instead that Pentax should release the equivalent of a D3s for $2-3k?
I'm not suggesting anything. I just am commenting on the premium people pay for FF over the cost of building one.

I am pretty new to the DSLR world. I bought a used K20 less than a year ago only because I got a great deal on it. I still own and use Pentax KX, K2 and Leica M6, shoot film and scan the good ones. I bought an EOS back in the 80's when they came out, liked it, but in the end went back to my Leica rangefinder as well as View Cameras. Will I every buy a K1 FF if it is ever made? Perhaps, but a Leica digital M body is more likely. Right now, the K20 does what I want as far as digital is concerned.
11-16-2011, 04:16 PM   #1244
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Taylor, Texas
Posts: 1,017
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
It's a worse idea to take a few fanboy arguments to heart. The market data simply does not lie. Pentax has less than 5% of the DSLR market and FF from other brands has less than 5% of their total DSLR sales.

This leaves Pentax with very few potential customers from its installed base.

To heap on the data, there exists vocal consumer, media, technical, and financial voices discussing openly the concept that DSLR's are going to be niche products due to the onset of mirrorless systems.

Both current and future markets are compromised. The price of any FF is going to extremely high compared to current and projected discretionary buying power. In fact, the FF market looks to be in decline relative to APS-C as current discretionary $$$ are moving towards less expensive options. Articulated sentiments expressed here are showing up as real data in sales stats. This is likely a function of pricing, something that looks unlikely to change in the next 2-3 years.

FF looks only to be viable if Ricoh is willing to bet a staggering amount of money on the format, and lose that money for a 5-10 year period. Since the format is tied to the lens mount, this is problematic as the ability to sell-though the large form factor DSLR in an increasingly fractured market will almost certainly lead to repressed volume, on a product that has pretty much zero price elasticity. not all current Pentax FF followers want a DSLR. Many want a quantum leap to mirrorless.

Sure, you can build it. Sure, people will come. Not enough people, say the stats, to make a profit in such a tiny niche.

In any case, the point is moot. Given sensor design and production cycles, Pentax is at least 24 months away from any system. And that's just body/sensor stuff. A proper lens array is even more problematic. All this while still having to output APS-C DSLR's to stay on shelves and generate revenues.
I just got D700. I don't think many people here have looked at Nikon's lens selection.....and the price of the FX lenses. The 24-70mm is $1900, the 14-24mm is $2000 and the 70-200mm is another $2000. Sure you can buy a Sigma, but Nikon isn't making any money off that. So that's $6,000 just for three zooms and $2500 for the body (I got mine cheaper but that's the going rate now). Pentax doesn't even have these lenses for FF. To make any in roads into the professional market these lenses are mandatory + a F1.4 85mm and an F2.0 135mm (Nikon's are $1000 and $1300 respectively). I just don't see how they do this in the next couple of years but maybe they can.

You also need a really good 35mm. Nikon's is $1300. It really defeats the purpose to buy a $2500+ camera body and only put a $100-$300 lenses on it.

I've really enjoyed this forum so I sure hope Pentax makes that commitment for it's current customer base. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility, but I seriously doubt it will be this year or next given their currents lenses. The current lenses are perfect for the K 5 which is a really great camera and perfectly suited for the DA Limiteds.

I think Ricoh will do something with Pentax but I wouldn't be surprised if it's something more unique that what Pentax is doing now.
11-16-2011, 05:08 PM   #1245
Veteran Member
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by stanleyk Quote

... It really defeats the purpose to buy a $2500+ camera body and only put a $100-$300 lenses on it.

It absolutely does not. Being able to get fantastic results in FOV/DOF combinations while taking advantage of just pure native sharpness of some of those lenses while doing so is one of the advantages of Full Frame.

Ricoh needs folks to buy the big ticket lenses - but they aren't required for the shooter to take advantage of FF.

.
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 12:43 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