[Ben_Edict]

if they build new lenses that are "copies" of the old one with AF and some with weather sealing, lots of people would buy some.

When i say "old ones" i mean for example : the A15, A17, M35/1.4, 200 Macro, all "star" lenses (A85/135, ...). Those are top notch but other like 17-28 FE are unique too.

Pentax did produce some unusal lenses (limited) that used to be great and praised. they can do it again

All of these lenses would cost real money, I mean thousands in today's money. And if I see the usual discussion in this forum, which usually circles around the cheapest possible equipment, than it is quite clear, in my opinion, that a FF body with top-notch lenses is not sustainable. The typical Pentax user is hard pressed to shell out just 1000 USD for the FA 31mm, which is a gem. Any reincarnation of the 200mm Macro, the 135/1.8 etc. will be way more expensive.

I do not have the current numbers, but when I was more involved with the business side of the photo industry, none of the big names earned any money with there professional reference bodies and high end lenses. They all substituted these expensive lines, because it was the best marketing investment for them, when the amateurs saw big Nikons and Canons at any sports event or in the hands of widely known photogs. That pushed up sales in the lower value, but higher numbers department.

Pentax has long since lost this track. The last real name in photography, who was used by Pentax as a pro refernce was Sam Haskins and that's 30 years in the past.

I already wrote that at the beginning of this way too long thread: Pentax cannot sustain an expensive FF line-up, because it needs very high investments and Pentax lacks the customers who would pay accordingly.

Ben

[ElJamoquio]

And with a good enough quality, that's the point really.
A pentax camera like D800 D600 might look nice but how many of us do really need it and are willing to invest in it?

Basically when we talk about it most say that they want FF so that their old lenses are like they used to be on film, if pentax would make a camera for those people then how many new lenses will they sell?
You can't sustain FF system purely on selling bodies alone

There's certainly more money in selling APS-C and expensive lenses than there is in selling FF and cheap lenses.

But how many people are going to purchase a $1500 K-5 Mk 7 when the Canon 5D Mk 10 is $1500?

Exactly *now* may or may not be the time that Pentax has to go FF, but if Pentax wants to stay in the DSLR market long-term (not a given, of course) they'll have to enlarge the sensor eventually.

[Mareket]

Isn't it a basic marketing thing where you make the consumer imagine what it's like having your product? So people see pros with their flagship bodies and pro f/2.8 zooms with massive flashes looking all imposing and confident. So they want to be like that, but they can't afford it yet, so they'll get what they can. One day they'll be like those Canon and Nikon pros, they hope, so they'll get a Canon or Nikon camera.

"Pros use Canon and Nikon, and so do I, therefore we have something in common. Clearly it is our incredible photographic prowess."

Probably why Pentax users love their tiny primes and modest lenses. Because no one buys into Pentax thinking they'll look like the pros they want to look like because they're using Pentax gear.

[parsons]

Isn't it a basic marketing thing where you make the consumer imagine what it's like having your product? So people see pros with their flagship bodies and pro f/2.8 zooms with massive flashes looking all imposing and confident. So they want to be like that, but they can't afford it yet, so they'll get what they can. One day they'll be like those Canon and Nikon pros, they hope, so they'll get a Canon or Nikon camera.

"Pros use Canon and Nikon, and so do I, therefore we have something in common. Clearly it is our incredible photographic prowess."

Probably why Pentax users love their tiny primes and modest lenses. Because no one buys into Pentax thinking they'll look like the pros they want to look like because they're using Pentax gear.

I agree, and for this resin i think that pentax could do with a 'complete line up' as they said that they would work towards (think that was at CP+?) complete from p+s to medium format. all the way through full frame.

that would be something neither canon or nikon could boast.

---

Last edited by parsons; 06-16-2012 at 02:37 PM.

[gazonk]

But how many people are going to purchase a $1500 K-5 Mk 7 when the Canon 5D Mk 10 is $1500?

.

I would rather have the K-5 mk7 if canon continues to produce cameras that have so-so IQ

[ElJamoquio]

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of catching up before I'd ever buy canon.

[Smolk]

A pentax camera like D800 D600 might look nice but how many of us do really need it and are willing to invest in it?

Actually, all who have a 645D might appreciate a smaller cousin, and with the excellent adapter they can use all 645 lenses on it, too. And quite a few (most actually) do very well on a dslr.
But the major market will be those who like to invest in a good dslr, especially when it will be exceptionally light.
That will include those who want a digital 35mm cameras but just not APS-C. On FF, I'd crave the limited set, and probably will plunge for it one day. On APS-C, I've given the K-x to my wife (well, she took it) and I stayed with film (MF).

[Anvh]

But how many people are going to purchase a $1500 K-5 Mk 7 when the Canon 5D Mk 10 is $1500?

Wont never happen APS-C will always be cheaper then FF.

[ElJamoquio]

Wont never happen APS-C will always be cheaper then FF.

Strictly true, but the kit price with lens will be cheaper with FF for a 'decent' IQ. Check out Nikon right now... buy a few 1.8's and a D800 and you have a better kit than D7000 and a few 1.4's.

..and the difference in cost between top-of-the-line APS-C and low-cost FF has been falling since it was introduced and will continue to do so. There will always be a $10k FF, but the sub-$2k FF is coming.

[Anvh]

But you can't compare f/1.4 with f/1.8 lens solely on iq and neither can you do that with top-end APS-C compared to entry level FF, the hardware in the APS-C and his overall performance are often better.
Just compare the 7D and 5D mark II or the D300s with the D700.
Different camera for different people, the ones looking at the D7 or D300s won't consider 5D mark II or D700 and vice versa, there is no competition between them.
To be frank i'm actually eying the m4/3th for some time now, yes thats even a smaller sensor then APS-C...

I'm using older cameras because the top-end aps-c hasn't been renewed recently.

[Anvh]

Actually, all who have a 645D might appreciate a smaller cousin, and with the excellent adapter they can use all 645 lenses on it, too. And quite a few (most actually) do very well on a dslr.

They can also go for canon or nikon for that.
And still making a system to only sell the camera is not healthy, they also need to sell lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

But you can't compare f/1.4 with f/1.8 lens solely on iq

I agree - the FF with 1.8(s) will be smaller, lighter, and cheaper too, for equivalent systems.

and neither can you do that with top-end APS-C compared to entry level FF, the hardware in the APS-C and his overall performance are often better.

I agree with you to a point. The 5DII and the D700 are both older than the 7D, or the k-5, or the d7000. I guess we'll see in a few months - I'm guessing the D600 will have 'better features' than the D300s; but of course that isn't really 100% fair either, because the D600 will be newer than the D300s, and all the chips, etc., that are needed will be much cheaper and better.

Different camera for different people, the ones looking at the D7 or D300s won't consider 5D mark II or D700 and vice versa, there is no competition between them.

I agree with the statement 'the target market is different and each has their advantages'. I also agree that given an equivalent body price, the APS-C camera will have some combination of faster clearing of cache, better control buttons/dials, etc. Given an equivalent total kit price, with the requirement of 'decent' image quality, after "X" lenses the FF starts becoming cheaper. Of course the number "X" depends on what exactly you're looking for in your lenses, but I think for most people that post here often, they have way more lenses than "X".

[Anvh]

If you're looking at DOF equivalent yes but not if you look at light gathering equivalent, beside it's quite hard to compare lenses these way because you would use a 50mm different on each system also the carachter of each lens is very different
About the price a 50mm f/1.4 for APS-C can be made cheaper the 50mm f/1.4 for FF, sure there are differences and you need a different lens for equivalent for DOF but how much are you able to use 50mm at f1.4 to begin with on FF?

Beside the price of a lens isn't that important since you can see it as an investment, lens prices are quite steady something that can't be said about the camera in 4 years time the value will be dropped to 1/3th of the original value sometimes ur are lucky but it can also be lower then that. So spending 500$ more on a lens is different then spending same amount on a body, you wont see it back.

I know you're talking about equivalently priced bodies but if you want FF with the same features as top-end APS-C then you're in a different ball-park, so lets compare like for like as well as with the lenses shall we.

If you want you can compare the D300s with the D800 and you will see how well they compare with each other and since the D600 will be placed below the D800, well you get my point. I dont see how the D300s will be comparable to the D600 with features, the D600 will be more comparable with the D7000 or maybe the D3200 with dual control wheels.


All in all it's very messy to compare it like this, and i don't see why either side should be better or worse in total they are just different.
I would love something above the K5 but it would be a APS-C not a FF for me.
Besides if i want FF i would go to another brand with a more establish line at the moment if i want to have a professional career, its good i dont want or need FF so i dont really care to be honest. More interested in 645 if i'm thinking of stepping the game up a notch, in terms of the image the step between APS-C and FF is small. And yes i know both format i often have files from the 5d mkii on my computer to process.

[ElJamoquio]

You aren't going to use f/1.4 very often on FF - which is why you'd use a f/1.8 or so, still stop it down.

The D800 sensor specs (including test performance) make the sensor look very much like an 'expanded' k-5/d7000 sensor. As such when you make DOF equivalent and shutter speed equivalent the signal:noise ratio will be equivalent. I know that isn't obvious but when you go through the math based on the real data that DxO provides us, it is equivalent.

I agree with your point about lenses, but think you have the magnitude a bit off. Right now we're all used to our lens prices appreciating but that isn't necessarily the case. Certainly they do not lose value as fast as the bodies, no one can argue that.

For what it's worth, I'd rather have the K-5 than the 5D II, I don't think it's that special of a camera. I've shot a couple of pictures with a friend's 5D III but otherwise I really can't comment. The D800, though... I've never touched one, but the k-5 sensor expanded to FF sounds reeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaallly good.

[gtl]

All the Nikon f1.8 primes look very very good for the money

28mm f1.8 vs FA31mm, 700 vs 1000
50mm f1.8 vs FA43mm, 250 vs 590
85mm f1.8 vs FA77mm, 500 vs 800

Total Nikon lenses price, 1450
Total Pentax lenses price, 2390

Thats a very very big difference. Granted the build of the FA limiteds areall metal and satisfying, but there is no denying the value of the Nikon lineup at the moment. And the plastic would be more resistant to knocks. What Pentax really have is in built SR over the Nikon equivalents. A D600 would make the above prices more equivalent vs Pentax up coming APS-C flagship.