[Pål Jensen]

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.

Actually, they have been sucessful. The K-r has sold briskly and the company is making money.

[jsherman999]

From my understanding camera companies really don't make profit from their cameras

That's an oft-repeated myth. No DSLR bodies sold today are losing money per-unit. It's been estimated that the D3 makes over $2500 profit per body, probably more.

I'd imagine he margins get pretty tight at entry-level, where they have to make their money in volume. Lenses are generally higher-margin than bodies, and the lenses are where the camera companies do make a lot of money. But the bodies are never loss-leaders.

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.

Yes.

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. The only benefit I see with APS-C is what Pentax has been able to do with keeping small compact bodies and lenses available.

aps-c DSLR may go away - at least the entry-level - to be largely replaced by mirrorless. If Ricoh wants to maintain K-mount sales at a healthy volume, they will probably have to go FF.

To build a solid FF lens lineup without building whole new factories (just opening up all existing lines and a few more shifts in existing owned or leased factories,) they need to start on a lens roadmap pretty soon. 2-3 lenses per year gets them to a very good place in just 4 years.

4 years ago was early 2008 - not really that long ago, well within a smart company's lens planning window.


.

[Pentaxor]

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.

considering Pentax was already acquired by Ricoh, can we still consider them a small fish in producing a FF pond?

[Aristophanes]

Thats a very different story. Pentax is a megacorporation compared to the likes of Hasselblad et al selling litterally millions of cameras a year.

The lure of Hasselblad and Mamiya/Phase One is the pro support. By far the most purchases of those systems are professionals who require that support and pass those costs along to their customers.

Pentax has none of that. They expect their consumers to be self-supporting. The 645D is a turnkey medium format aimed at a different, non-pro market segment.

Pentax sells approximately 800k units of DSLR's per year. The Pentax share of P&S and bridge cameras is minuscule, like maybe another 200k per year.

[Aristophanes]

Actually, they have been sucessful. The K-r has sold briskly and the company is making money.

I agree.

Since the K10D Pentax has been growing their sales about on par with the competition, although it is hard to keep up with the marketing reach of Canon and Nikon.

Pentax was mostly in trouble during the *ist era in part because it's lower end product strategy was missing. The K200D, the K-2000, and especially the K-x and K-r have posted solid, if not spectacular sales. The K200D, K-x and K-r have garnered very good reviews.

On the basis of this, Pentax is making money.

[Aristophanes]

I'd imagine he margins get pretty tight at entry-level, where they have to make their money in volume. Lenses are generally higher-margin than bodies, and the lenses are where the camera companies do make a lot of money. But the bodies are never loss-leaders.

Not quite true. Companies will ramp up older models for close-outs and settle warranty backlogs at margin loss to drive the brand. Nikon did this with the D40, D40x, and D60. Canon with the original Rebel and, more recently, the T1i.

All's fair for market share.

[eddie1960]

considering Pentax was already acquired by Ricoh, can we still consider them a small fish in producing a FF pond?

Exactly. Sometimes you need to spend money to make it. Ricoh can afford to. if you keep listening to risk assessment and never looking towards new markets and how to grow, but instead look at how to make money through cuts will eventually just cut yourself out of the business. Hoya cleaned up some money draining messes that existed, now it's time for the other side of the coin and invest in a thought out growth strategy. which is one reason i think the siginifigant pentax announcements are more likely to be Photokina, with CP+ and the K01 being a stopgap hoya leftover with some ricoh input (which would explain it's delay). hopefully there are some visionary people being employed on the project from the ricoh side

[falconeye]

But so far from this list the price is the only thing that really draws me to it. Nothing says wow, I need that camera.

Thank you for the feed back. I'll appreciate and consider it.

I don't know how Pentax would be able to make a camera with more wow effect. Maybe add a hybrid VF etc. But I fear the package becomes too ambitious for Pentax too quickly. So, all I can do is to take notice that it wouldn't attract some.

Personally, 35MP in a K10D-sized body with 15EV DR and an FF VF and FF AF would make me say wow though

I think it would have to be <$2000.
...
I don't think a permanent vertical grip is the Pentax way.

Thank you for the feed back. I will always consider your voice

We basically agree except that you cripple a bit to get the camera below $2000. You may be right or not. IMHO, it is one of the reasons why the A900/A850 failed: not good enough once you ignore the sensor size. This is why I exceed the $2000 barrier to allow for an uncrippled FF Pentax.

The vertical grip was meant to be attachable.

[Aristophanes]

We basically agree except that you cripple a bit to get the camera below $2000. You may be right or not. IMHO, it is one of the reasons why the A900/A850 failed: not good enough once you ignore the sensor size. This is why I exceed the $2000 barrier to allow for an uncrippled FF Pentax.

But there's the rub.

In order to get to market Pentax needs to compete on price because they are not going to compete on features or lenses or accessories. They cannot match Canon or Nikon.

Sony tried on price and almost no one from Canon or Nikon left those camps because of the price difference. It was too small. It made no impact on sales.

Why would Pentax be different?

Are there enough Pentax loyalists alone to satisfy the demand for an FF system required to sell well over 100k-200k bodies per year at over $2,000?

If Pentax is not competing on sensors size, and not on features, and not on lenses, or flash systems, or pro support and software, then what's the advantage?

Look at it this way: to compete in FF Pentax would have to convince about 20% of the current APS-C crowd to spend $500 more per body AND invest in new lenses. Is that possible? Are Pentax users willing in such large numbers to ante up that premium?

Either that, or Pentax MUST take FF market share from Canon and Nikon like Sony tried. Is price how they do that?

So they either have to force the currently loyal to spend much more than they do now, or have current and potential Canon or Nikon FF customers to switch due to price differences.

This mostly goes away if FF prices drop from Sony as sensor supplier and Canon and Nikon duke it out. At that point Pentax doesn't have to ask much more of its current customer base and can be a standing alternative to the other brands like they have done wit APS-C.

[thibs]

I guess with the upcoming dSLRs breaking the 20MP barrier, we're going to see sDNG or similiar and I see no reason Pentax wouldn't support it. But we're deep in speculation territory here

Adobe did exactly that if I read LR4 beta release notes correctly.

[Class A]

Sony tried on price and almost no one from Canon or Nikon left those camps because of the price difference. It was too small. It made no impact on sales.

Why would Pentax be different?

I believe Sony had an image problem when they first tried to become a serious player in the DSLR market. You buy a TV set or headphones from Sony but until recently Sony didn't have a reputation as an optical company.

I believe that many buyers that spend lots of $ for a full frame camera do not really need the equipment, they want it and the image/reputation of the manufacturer plays a big role. I'm betting that more people would buy a high end Nikon camera even if a better speced camera would be available for less money from Samsung. You just don't obtain any bragging rights when you buy a Samsung camera.

Pentax has a long history as an optical company and would not have early acceptance problems. Sony has built up its reputation as a camera manufacturer and I'm betting that its future FF models will be better received than the A900/850, despite the lens prices.

Adobe did exactly that if I read LR4 beta release notes correctly.

LR4 supports a DNG extension for lossy compression. Purists will reject it, some may appreciate that they can reduce file size and only get some artifacts (similar to JPG compression artifacts) but not lose the original bit depth.

[falconeye]

Why would Pentax be different?

I am simply more optimist, you would say, less realist

Imagine Pentax brought the K-5 but Nikon would have skipped the D7000. The K-5 would have been a huge success.

I actually don't see the awaited 5DmkIII or D4 or D4X as possible threats for a camera like I described it. It would have one serious competitor though: The D700-sized D800 with 36MP awaited for March this year. It is said to launch at Feb 7 at $3900. But some have spotted a preorder page where it lists at $2700. Franzis Verlag in Germany announced a D800 book for March too.

So, with prices going to drop during 2012, the D800 (or D800E w/o AA filter) will be difficult to compete with for Pentax. IMHO, a smaller body with the same sensor and 2/3 the price would still be their best bet.

[Pål Jensen]

Pentax sells approximately 800k units of DSLR's per year. The Pentax share of P&S and bridge cameras is minuscule, like maybe another 200k per year.

The last numbers I saw, admmitedly about three years old, Pentax sold 3 million cameras in total per year. The DSLR numbers you provide may be on the high side...

[Pål Jensen]

Are there enough Pentax loyalists alone to satisfy the demand for an FF system required to sell well over 100k-200k bodies per year at over $2,000?.

I'll estimate that the volume potential of a Pentax FF body is about 10 000 units over a period of a couple of years...
My guess is a potential Pentax FF camera will be expensive and targeted at users with older lenses...

[fikkser]

I'll estimate that the volume potential of a Pentax FF body is about 10 000 units over a period of a couple of years...
My guess is a potential Pentax FF camera will be expensive and targeted at users with older lenses...

People who buys the FF will for sure buy more lenses. That way they wont need to sell as many FF cameras as APS-C. I don't think anyone who buys the FF will be satisfied with just a kit lens. And they can probably push the price down on the body and make money in the long term, maybe with a higher priced second FF body.


I agree with falk, canon is not the biggest competitor for a Pentax FF. The 5D mark 3 will probably have high pixel count aimed at studio work (slower af and so on).

I'd worry about Nikon D800 and Sony. If Nikon puts a 35mp sensor in the D800, who will buy a much higher priced and bigger D4? Both will probably be speed monsters with similar specs?