[gazonk]

+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

[Clavius]

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.

[gazonk]

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)

[Class A]

I know nothing but I'm commenting anyhow:

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.

• ~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.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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).

[Pentaxor]

Tell that to Apple

Apple is now having a tough year and it started last year.

[Asahiflex]

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).

[rjcassara]

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.

[Pentaxor]

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.

[Pål Jensen]

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.

[Pentaxor]

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.

[SMC-man]

Nikon staff numbers in 2010 : approx. 26,000
Pentax staff numbers in 2005 : approx. 1,700
Hasselblad staff numbers in 2012 : < 60

[markku55]

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.

[jsherman999]

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)


.

[builttospill]

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.

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.

[Pål Jensen]

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.