[stanleyk]

The thing weighting that stat is the amount of folks just buying the two kits lens when they get an entry-level DSLR. FF buyers tend to buy more (and more expensive) lenses over time, an upgrade market Pentax has just handed over to CaNikon for the past six years.

.

Exactly. I think Ricoh has the financial ability to compete, but they need to look at the lenses and decide if they are going for that all important wedding market.. Seriously, they could compete but they do need some new, faster and better lenses before they release the body. Probably 24, 35, 85 and two good F2.8 zooms. If you see something about a 35 F1.4 and 85 F1.4 or .8 then yes the Full Frame is close.

[Winder]

Exactly. I think Ricoh has the financial ability to compete, but they need to look at the lenses and decide if they are going for that all important wedding market.. Seriously, they could compete but they do need some new, faster and better lenses before they release the body. Probably 24, 35, 85 and two good F2.8 zooms. If you see something about a 35 F1.4 and 85 F1.4 or .8 then yes the Full Frame is close.

Pentax seems more interested in producing the "plastic fantastic" type of lenses these days. Luckily Sigma is stepping up and filling the need for more serious long glass.

[Fontan]

The thing weighting that stat is the amount of folks just buying the two kits lens when they get an entry-level DSLR. FF buyers tend to buy more (and more expensive) lenses over time, an upgrade market Pentax has just handed over to CaNikon for the past six years.

.

Not that I don't believe you, but how do you know that?

[jsherman999]

Not that I don't believe you, but how do you know that?

There were some stats posted on dpreview a while back showing bodies purchased vs. bodies + kit lenses purchased vs. individual lens purchases, and the vast majority of DSLR purchases were entry level body + lens kits. Those folks, for whatever reason, almost never bought another lens, just stuck with the two (or one) kits. This really weighted the numbers toward < 2 lenses per DSLR buyer.

This mirrors what I've seen in 'real life' - Almost all of the DSLR owners I'm personally aware of (neighbors, family, co-workers) only have the kit lenses.

If you spend the money for a FF body, you probably don't get two kit lenses and stop, you probably buy one or two or three nice lenses to start, and grow your kit over time, sometimes buying very expensive lenses (sometimes not.)


.

[Pentaxor]

There were some stats posted on dpreview a while back showing bodies purchased vs. bodies + kit lenses purchased vs. individual lens purchases, and the vast majority of DSLR purchases were entry level body + lens kits. Those folks, for whatever reason, almost never bought another lens, just stuck with the two (or one) kits. This really weighted the numbers toward < 2 lenses per DSLR buyer.

This mirrors what I've seen in 'real life' - Almost all of the DSLR owners I'm personally aware of (neighbors, family, co-workers) only have the kit lenses.

If you spend the money for a FF body, you probably don't get two kit lenses and stop, you probably buy one or two or three nice lenses to start, and grow your kit over time, sometimes buying very expensive lenses (sometimes not.)


.

this is true and this is what I've noticed as well. there is a recent boom in the number of dslr buyers in the past 2 years. most of them are first time novice buyers whom for the last 2 years have nothing but 1 or 2 zoom kit lenses. it's obvious that the market for these dslr cameras are only concern about entry level camera purchases rather than investing in lenses. the market for FF is more towards more expensive lens acquisition. FF owners are aware of this, while most camera consumers don't know.

so far, Canon seems to be the most popular camera for most general dslr camera consumers due to Canon's marketing, not because it's the best camera. and Pentax certainly cannot compete head on first with the sales number when it comes to entry-level dslrs. even the Sony NEX's fall behind Canon even if they are cheaper in the entry-level market. so this leaves Pentax to establish it's roots to where it could make an impact.

the K-5 is a great camera, and I'm sure that most owners/users who knows the camera owns and invested a lot of money on lenses. if they could afford such premium lenses, why is it a problem to purchase a $2500 FF dlsr for a one time purchase?

basically, FF is a better territory to invest for Pentax rather than entry-level and mid-level. Pentax had to contend with same pricing with other brands at those markets, while they could make an impact in the FF if they correctly price a well-designed FF camera. heck, it's even way cheaper than the APS-C Sigma SD1.

[Pentaxor]

btw, between the cost of buying an APS-C SD1 + a few premium lenses and a FF D700 + the same number of premium lenses, what do you think would make more sense?

[Fontan]

There were some stats posted on dpreview a while back showing bodies purchased vs. bodies + kit lenses purchased vs. individual lens purchases, and the vast majority of DSLR purchases were entry level body + lens kits. Those folks, for whatever reason, almost never bought another lens, just stuck with the two (or one) kits. This really weighted the numbers toward < 2 lenses per DSLR buyer.

This mirrors what I've seen in 'real life' - Almost all of the DSLR owners I'm personally aware of (neighbors, family, co-workers) only have the kit lenses.

If you spend the money for a FF body, you probably don't get two kit lenses and stop, you probably buy one or two or three nice lenses to start, and grow your kit over time, sometimes buying very expensive lenses (sometimes not.)


.

Ah. I am one of those people who needs to be convinced by number gathering rather than what I tend to see. It makes sense.

[Fontan]

this is true and this is what I've noticed as well. there is a recent boom in the number of dslr buyers in the past 2 years. most of them are first time novice buyers whom for the last 2 years have nothing but 1 or 2 zoom kit lenses. it's obvious that the market for these dslr cameras are only concern about entry level camera purchases rather than investing in lenses. the market for FF is more towards more expensive lens acquisition. FF owners are aware of this, while most camera consumers don't know.

so far, Canon seems to be the most popular camera for most general dslr camera consumers due to Canon's marketing, not because it's the best camera. and Pentax certainly cannot compete head on first with the sales number when it comes to entry-level dslrs. even the Sony NEX's fall behind Canon even if they are cheaper in the entry-level market. so this leaves Pentax to establish it's roots to where it could make an impact.

the K-5 is a great camera, and I'm sure that most owners/users who knows the camera owns and invested a lot of money on lenses. if they could afford such premium lenses, why is it a problem to purchase a $2500 FF dlsr for a one time purchase?

basically, FF is a better territory to invest for Pentax rather than entry-level and mid-level. Pentax had to contend with same pricing with other brands at those markets, while they could make an impact in the FF if they correctly price a well-designed FF camera. heck, it's even way cheaper than the APS-C Sigma SD1.

My concern about investing in such a territory for company like Pentax is the possibility that FF camera can eat into APS-C sales numbers depending on how they price such a camera. I have been saying all along that if they are to do FF they need to go cheap, much in the way of what they did with 645d. It was a game changer largely because it undercut the entire digital MF market. Non Pentax FF buyer will only look at Pentax only if the system is significantly cheaper, even if they offer newer cutting edge stuff, only because even if Pentax was successful in that regard, it would be a matter of time before Canikon catch up with that particular technology.

So, who does Pentax target such a camera? Brand loyalists who own K-5 with a bunch of lenses already in hands? If so I am not seeing the point. I am just not sure if these type of buyers will drop all aps-c stuff they got and jump into FF head on. If this really is the target, they need to go, once again, cheap, relatively speaking. Pretty soon, the pricing of FF body will begin to approach that of top aps-c body. Two system set up ( aps-c and FF)? I am not seeing that either, because pretty soon, the cost of having two systems will approach the price of 645d.

This is why I think that if they are to FF, they will not do it With DSLR. They will go mirrorless. Therefore I predict that next Pentax dslr will be APS-C.

[Aristophanes]

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

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.

Nikon's strategy is usually (maybe not this time...but usually) is to keep old models running at lower price points for some time. Canon does this as well.

We *might* see the D700 continue in production at a lower price point than the D800 which I think will come in at US$2699. Right now it is listed at B&H as temporarily unavailable, but Nikon had to do a big reset due to the earthquake and flood disasters so inventory is in disarray.

If Nikon does dual production, then you have your answer to the Pentax price opportunity, and Nikon gets there first with a legendary camera. We'll have to see.

[Aristophanes]

It was a game changer largely because it undercut the entire digital MF market.

Myth.

The 645D sells to users who do not need or want or require pro support. Those that can afford a Hasselblad also can afford the pro support.

The Pentax 645D filled a void, but did not upend the MF market as much as many here might think. I know one shop here in town with Hasselblad pro gear and they did not even think to look at the Pentax offering.

[Fontan]

Myth.

The 645D sells to users who do not need or want or require pro support. Those that can afford a Hasselblad also can afford the pro support.

The Pentax 645D filled a void, but did not upend the MF market as much as many here might think. I know one shop here in town with Hasselblad pro gear and they did not even think to look at the Pentax offering.

Eh, you call it myth because you saw how it was with one shop? I need a bit more than that to be convinced. It is like a physician saying that "eh, I will prescribe you this medication because I saw it worked on one patient."

[jsherman999]

Myth.

The 645D sells to users who do not need or want or require pro support. Those that can afford a Hasselblad also can afford the pro support.

The Pentax 645D filled a void, but did not upend the MF market as much as many here might think. I know one shop here in town with Hasselblad pro gear and they did not even think to look at the Pentax offering.

According to what I've read, the worldwide MFD market before the introduction of the 645D was 6000 units annually. The 645D reportedly sold around 10,000 units in it's first 1.5 years - meaning it effectively doubled the existing market (it's introduction caused the market to double in units sold.) Regardless of whatever reasons your local shop has for not carrying the 645D, it doesn't seem to be a good indicator of what's happened in the market.

(If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the 645D brought MFD more deeply into the enthusiast realm, because of it's price point.)

[Pentaxor]

According to what I've read, the worldwide MFD market before the introduction of the 645D was 6000 units annually. The 645D reportedly sold around 10,000 units in it's first 1.5 years - meaning it effectively doubled the existing market. Regardless of whatever reasons your local shop has for not carrying the 645D, it doesn't seem to be a good indicator of what's happened in the market.

(If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the 645D brought MFD more deeply into the enthusiast realm, because of it's price point.)

true. besides, one shop could always choose to carry or not carry a specific brand. this could be due to several reasons but not indicative of something in general about the market. for example, I also know of a shop or shops that still don't carry the X100. does that mean that the X100 is a failure?

[markku55]

After reading this artickle I have become to wonder, should ALL videangle lenses for FF be reconstructed to get good edge quality?:
HDSLR Shooter ? A History of Mirrorless vs Mirrored Cameras

[Fogel70]

After reading this artickle I have become to wonder, should ALL videangle lenses for FF be reconstructed to get good edge quality?:
HDSLR Shooter ? A History of Mirrorless vs Mirrored Cameras

I think Fuji made the best overall solution for X-Pro. Very large rear element close to the sensor.
DSLR wide angle lenses usually has smaller rear element so they probably don't perform any better edge quality than X-Pro lenses.

Check the difference in optical formula (and rear element) on Fuji 18/2 and Pentax DA 15/4.
2: Top-Performing Lenses | FUJIFILM X-Pro1
DA 15/4 AL ED Limited