Originally posted by Jan67 I am afraid, that there is no choice between features and compactness in FF now, except Leica M9.
First, the M9 is not really all that small. It's a 600g camera worth a huge amount of $$$. I have not been totally impressed with sample images from the sensor. I think the Sony and Canon sensors better. IQ is only as good as the weakest link.
Originally posted by Jan67 Your business case remains in pro domain with relatively small amount of sold pcs and high price > $3000. No wonder, that FF market is so small !!
I am still convinced, that "walk around FF camera" has a potential to address many enthusiasts from all brands and would be therefore sold in much bigger pcs
The kicker with FF is the price per unit of the sensor. FF sensors have to be stitched. There 's some information out there this has become cheaper, but some that says FF sensor prices are high because neither Sony or Canon want to get into a price war and cannibalize their very lucrative APS-C business where the sensor price is as low as $80 per unit compared to the FF's $500-800 per unit.
At these prices, if Pentax gets into FF, it's going to be a me-too, Nikon D700/800 clone. Pentax would, like Canon or Nikon, require a fair bit of price separation between the K-5 or successor, and its FF flagship. The current separation between a Nikon D300 and D700 is almost $1,000.
Once you get well above $2,000 per camera body, the whole system on offer from the manufacturer is critical. At these prices one cannot under-spec the product. A lot of Sony rumour is that they pulled the A900 in part because of the lack of video. The camera was not drawing in any new consumers and the installed base was already sold through. That's a problem with pro quality gear: it's so durable and the product turnover so slow, that once the flurry of initial sales is over, there is no growth unless you poach from the other guy. Residual market appeal is tiny for discretionary spending products at these high prices.
Sony did try and grow the FF market by offering the A850 at less than $2,000 per body. And they put out some less expensive FF glass as well. Sony figured they could tap into the Minolta user base at leverage that with a lower-end FF, and then on price alone they could take some Canikon customers, and potential new customers as well.
It sounds like Sony ran into a revenue wall. The A850 has slightly inferior specs to the A900 at $500 more. Neither competed well with the Nikon D700 at about $600 more. The A850 simply did not achieve its market objectives. It did not sell well.
The conclusion from industry watchers, especially at retail, was that the market elasticity for cameras over $1,500 is really small. Above that price point competing on price alone is not enough. Compounding this is the issue of lens prices for FF and the whole cost of system buy-in. The A850 was rapidly cancelled and now the A900 has ceased manufacture. Sony has supplied some vague information about 1-3 new FF models in 2012. Rumour has it one will be an E-Mount.
If you're Pentax, and you have 40% of Sony's installed base (from Minolta Maxxum/Dynax days) the cost problem is even more acute because you have a smaller base to draw upon, and, worse, unlike Sony, you do not make your own sensors. Sony does. The supposed Holy Grail of a smaller DSLR package as a breakthrough sales tactic is a fantasy; there may be marginal form factor gains, but nothing to shake the market. You're still looking at a rather large camera...larger than APS-C. So how does Pentax compete for new customers in the FF market when Canon and Nikon have such huge advantages like flash systems and twin lines of FF glass (f/2.8 pro and f/4 prosumer)? Price? Is Ricoh going to take staggering losses that Sony was not willing to take? I doubt that. Lenses? Realistically zooms far outsell primes, so that Pentax advantage is not a sales driver.
And no one really knows how the overall DSLR vs. mirrorless duel will play out, throwing another wrench into the market size issue. If the DSLR form factor starts to look out-of-date and bulky compared to, say, the NEX-7, and perhaps any E-Mount FF from Sony next year (and whatever Canon has in their skunkworks), then a Pentax DSLR may have zero traction to attract any new customers from what is a shrinking market profile. If the ILC market grows at 8% per annum, but the FF DSLR market grows only at 0.5% per annum, Pentax has a serious revenue problem and likely no ROI on an FF investment. It's not the first year of FF sales that kill you because the pent-up demand is there from a core base, for sure; it's years 2-5 of the product's life cycle. For that to play out you need strong sales of that product over that timeframe. Unlikely if the FF market grows much slower than other ILC markets.
The biggest hope for Pentax FF is for Sony, Nikon, and Canon to willingly chew up their own top-end APS-C user base (Nikon D300, Canon 60D) by getting into a FF sensor price war. Then the price per unit drops and Pentax can make a move. Until that happens, I cannot see a Pentax FF in the near future. The price is a huge barrier.