[tohax]

well.. however.. just please don't let marc newson design the FF body..

[24X36NOW]

Ah yes, the loyal Pentaxians who demand that Pentax change their strategy abandon their advanced APS-C camera niche in order to produce a higher-priced product that many of the loudest advocates won't even buy. Such loyal, loyal Pentaxians.

Not like the people who buy and support their current product line and hope for continuing innovation and evolution of the same. Those traitors!

Pentax doesn't have an "advanced APS-C camera niche." Nikon and Canon both have APS-C cameras more "advanced" than the K5, and there's nothing that makes the K5 all that "special" that makes it a "niche" product. The whole "niche" mantra is nothing more than excuse-making for Pentax being a shrinking also-ran in the market place, and it's been the "bottom feeding" strategy that Pentax has pursued for years now that have moved it from being the camera maker that sold more SLRs than any other to the one that is but a memory in today's market. The bone-headed "APS-C only" strategy is more of the same bottom feeding, and has already lost Pentax a lot of customers. It certainly isn't going to gain Pentax any "growth" which is what Ricoh is talking about.

Pentax market share is shrinking. Pentax is losing third party lens support. Pentax is dying a slow and painful death, essentially, and your brilliant "solution" to this is essentially more of the same. Get a grip. The "glory days" of Pentax were in the manual focus era. If you want to hold on to any of what is left of that customer base (which is much bigger than the "I never owned a Pentax before the digital age" crowd), APS-C dSLRs (with their puny little viewfinders that suck) don't cut it. If you want to convince any new customers that are serious about photography (who are the ones that will actually buy the nice glass you seem to think Pentax does need to make) that Pentax is a good system to choose, it needs a FF offering. Why buy into such a limited (and becoming ever more so, with the loss of third party lens support) system? The third party lens makers see the writing on the wall, and have made the intelligent business decision based on their assessment of Pentax's future. If that "writing on the wall" is going to be changed, it will require a FF dSLR, because that is where Pentax has a chance to stop the bleeding. APS-C dSLRs are a dime a dozen; there's a much better chance that Pentax can provide something "unique" (like a FF dSLR with a superior viewfinder to maximize the backward compatibility factor) in the FF realm, where there are only a handful of competing cameras, than there is any chance of winning converts (or keeping more K-mount customers from becoming Nikon or Canon converts) with more "preaching to the choir" APS-C cameras. Especially when the "choir," vocal as it may be, is shrinking.

[the swede]

Pentax doesn't have an "advanced APS-C camera niche." Nikon and Canon both have APS-C cameras more "advanced" than the K5, and there's nothing that makes the K5 all that "special" that makes it a "niche" product. The whole "niche" mantra is nothing more than excuse-making for Pentax being a shrinking also-ran in the market place, and it's been the "bottom feeding" strategy that Pentax has pursued for years now that have moved it from being the camera maker that sold more SLRs than any other to the one that is but a memory in today's market. The bone-headed "APS-C only" strategy is more of the same bottom feeding, and has already lost Pentax a lot of customers. It certainly isn't going to gain Pentax any "growth" which is what Ricoh is talking about.

Pentax market share is shrinking. Pentax is losing third party lens support. Pentax is dying a slow and painful death, essentially, and your brilliant "solution" to this is essentially more of the same. Get a grip. The "glory days" of Pentax were in the manual focus era. If you want to hold on to any of what is left of that customer base (which is much bigger than the "I never owned a Pentax before the digital age" crowd), APS-C dSLRs (with their puny little viewfinders that suck) don't cut it. If you want to convince any new customers that are serious about photography (who are the ones that will actually buy the nice glass you seem to think Pentax does need to make) that Pentax is a good system to choose, it needs a FF offering. Why buy into such a limited (and becoming ever more so, with the loss of third party lens support) system? The third party lens makers see the writing on the wall, and have made the intelligent business decision based on their assessment of Pentax's future. If that "writing on the wall" is going to be changed, it will require a FF dSLR, because that is where Pentax has a chance to stop the bleeding. APS-C dSLRs are a dime a dozen; there's a much better chance that Pentax can provide something "unique" (like a FF dSLR with a superior viewfinder to maximize the backward compatibility factor) in the FF realm, where there are only a handful of competing cameras, than there is any chance of winning converts (or keeping more K-mount customers from becoming Nikon or Canon converts) with more "preaching to the choir" APS-C cameras. Especially when the "choir," vocal as it may be, is shrinking.

Wow! And and and and

and at the end of the day i'll

[Clavius]

Pentax doesn't have an "advanced APS-C camera niche." Nikon and Canon both have APS-C cameras more "advanced" than the K5, and there's nothing that makes the K5 all that "special" that makes it a "niche" product. The whole "niche" mantra is nothing more than excuse-making for Pentax being a shrinking also-ran in the market place, and it's been the "bottom feeding" strategy that Pentax has pursued for years now that have moved it from being the camera maker that sold more SLRs than any other to the one that is but a memory in today's market. The bone-headed "APS-C only" strategy is more of the same bottom feeding, and has already lost Pentax a lot of customers. It certainly isn't going to gain Pentax any "growth" which is what Ricoh is talking about.

Pentax market share is shrinking. Pentax is losing third party lens support. Pentax is dying a slow and painful death, essentially, and your brilliant "solution" to this is essentially more of the same. Get a grip. The "glory days" of Pentax were in the manual focus era. If you want to hold on to any of what is left of that customer base (which is much bigger than the "I never owned a Pentax before the digital age" crowd), APS-C dSLRs (with their puny little viewfinders that suck) don't cut it. If you want to convince any new customers that are serious about photography (who are the ones that will actually buy the nice glass you seem to think Pentax does need to make) that Pentax is a good system to choose, it needs a FF offering. Why buy into such a limited (and becoming ever more so, with the loss of third party lens support) system? The third party lens makers see the writing on the wall, and have made the intelligent business decision based on their assessment of Pentax's future. If that "writing on the wall" is going to be changed, it will require a FF dSLR, because that is where Pentax has a chance to stop the bleeding. APS-C dSLRs are a dime a dozen; there's a much better chance that Pentax can provide something "unique" (like a FF dSLR with a superior viewfinder to maximize the backward compatibility factor) in the FF realm, where there are only a handful of competing cameras, than there is any chance of winning converts (or keeping more K-mount customers from becoming Nikon or Canon converts) with more "preaching to the choir" APS-C cameras. Especially when the "choir," vocal as it may be, is shrinking.

So first you rant about the Pentax APSC cameras not being all that special because the competitors have them too, and better ones. And a few sentences later you rant about Pentax having to build a FF camera... But don't the competitors have those too then?

Your logic is faulty.

If Pentax doesn't fill your needs, then you need a different camera-supplier.

[Pål Jensen]

Pentax market share is shrinking. Pentax is losing third party lens support. Pentax is dying a slow and painful death, essentially, and your brilliant "solution" to this is essentially more of the same. .

Nah. Pentax have been increasing their marketshare. The K-r was very successful. In addition they are making money. With a larger product palette the way foreward is up...

[tohax]

being out of the box is good, but it is not if the execution is too conservative. make it more revolutionary.
pentax must strengthen it's brand recognition to 'digital-baby-boomers'.
being on different track is ok, but no too far from the parade. otherwise you wont be, or less noticed.

[falconeye]

Nah. Pentax have been increasing their marketshare.

Not AFAIK.
Year by year, looking globally and for system cameras overall, they are loosing share. It was at least halved under Hoya.

[pz1fan]

The whole "niche" mantra is nothing more than excuse-making

Thanks for the post. I'll add that four-thirds failed at their smaller sensor DSLR advanced camera niche too. They had ridiculously expensive lenses to compensate for the small sensor. And four-thirds is not much smaller than APS.

I'm cautiously optimistic. I'll have to read the upcoming interview to get more insight.

No one campaigns against the 645D or the PentaxQ and I'm sure those take more "resources" away from APS. Even today.

[thibs]

No one campaigns against the 645D or the PentaxQ and I'm sure those take more "resources" away from APS. Even today.

645D is a K7/K5 in an MF camera. 645D didn't take anything. 645D recycled and helped to drive costs down.

[thibs]

If you want to convince any new customers that are serious about photography (who are the ones that will actually buy the nice glass you seem to think Pentax does need to make) that Pentax is a good system to choose, it needs a FF offering.

Proof with Oly/Pana. No FF and their marketshare is non existant. Really ?

[24X36NOW]

So first you rant about the Pentax APSC cameras not being all that special because the competitors have them too, and better ones. And a few sentences later you rant about Pentax having to build a FF camera... But don't the competitors have those too then?

Your logic is faulty.

If Pentax doesn't fill your needs, then you need a different camera-supplier.

My logic isn't faulty at all. There are but a few FF cameras, compared with APS-C which has been chopped up into so many segments you can't even count them. There IS no "niche" to carve out in APS-C, everything is already covered. In FF there are opportunities (e.g., better/higher magnification viewfinders to take advantage of Pentax's backward compatibility with manual focus lenses), but if Pentax (Ricoh) continues to drag its feet, they'll miss those opportunities (as in they won't have any customer base left to sell it to, if they don't get a move on).

As for your last sentence, what can I add? This is the attitude put forth by every defender of the bone-headed "APS-C only" Pentax strategy - telling people they should go elsewhere. News flash - they've BEEN going elsewhere, which was the whole point of my commentary. The "more of the same is going to make it better" crowd have the same mindset as the frog put into a pot of water and heated slowly - they don't realize they're cooked until it's too late. Pentax will continue to shrink until there is no K-mount if they don't produce FF dSLRs, irrespective of what you think about the idea. Just because the demise of the K-mount is happening in slow motion doesn't mean it's not happening.

No more Zeiss K-mount...no more Voigtlander K-mount...no more Tamron K-mount...minimal Sigma K-mount, and none of their high-end stuff in K-mount...what will it take for you to begin to see what is going on right in front of you? I suppose like many defending the idiotic APS-C only status quo, you somehow believe you have more insight into the camera industry than those who make lenses, and who have seen fit to abandon the K-mount because of its declining market share, particularly as respects the "enthusiast" photographers most likely to buy such lenses. No "advantage" will come from not competing in the FF dSLR market. No "growth" (which is supposedly what Ricoh wants to do with the Pentax brand) is going to result if Pentax doesn't compete in that market either. A FF Pentax is long overdue, and there isn't much time left before they'll be nobody left with enough interest in Pentax to buy one.

Batter up, Ricoh!

[24X36NOW]

Proof with Oly/Pana. No FF and their marketshare is non existant. Really ?

Their dSLR market share is, essentially. Are you suggesting that Pentax abandon the K-mount and focus on mirrorless, so they can compete on cheap cameras with little margin, in an entirely new mount? Olympus essentially acknowledged defeat by putting all their efforts into MFT.

[Pål Jensen]

No "advantage" will come from not competing in the FF dSLR market. No "growth" (which is supposedly what Ricoh wants to do with the Pentax brand) is going to result if Pentax doesn't compete in that market either. A FF Pentax is long overdue, and there isn't much time left before they'll be nobody left with enough interest in Pentax to buy one.

Batter up, Ricoh!

FF is not going to make any significant growth. ~5% of Nikon and Canon sales are FF; for Pentax it will certainly be no more. Hence, growth must come elsewehere....

[Eigengrau]

I remember a thread a while back when somebody asked "could an APS-C ever be good enough that you wouldn't need full frame?"

It seems to me that if you don't answer "yes" to that question, then you aren't thinking rationally. The reason I hollered for a full-frame Pentax for quite a while was the fact that I wanted D700-esque low-light performance, and I thought that the only way to achieve it was full frame. Well, now the K-5 is competitive with any camera out there in terms of sensitivity, and I have to say that I don't really give a damn about full frame any more, because it isn't offering any compelling benefit (for me).

Most of us don't need higher resolution. Most of us don't need thinner DoF. What else is full frame offering, other than bragging rights? And, is it really worth Pentax expending the resources to enter the full-frame arms race when 90% of users will be better satisfied by a high-performance APS-C?

I understand that there is a niche market that needs that full frame thing, but I think the obsession borders on religious for some, and that if we are objective it doesn't offer anything critical in most scenarios. I certainly wouldn't complain if Pentax brought one out, and if they do the same thing with full frame that they did with the K-5 I would be thrilled and a potential customer, but honestly I don't know if there's a good business case, or an entirely rational justification for full frame. What is it actually offering at this point?

[24X36NOW]

Which is exactly why I think going full frame is a HUGE MISTAKE and hope Pentax does not go this route. It will bankrupt the company unless Ricoh is prepared for a long term front end investment that will have no returns for 5 years.

Pentax has a 5% market share and the only people who will buy FF are current Pentax owners. You will get no business from Canon or Nikon shooters who already have a FF camera. Plus going FF is not one body. Does Pentax make a Landscape shooters camera at 24-36MP Hi-res sensor or a wedding shooters camera at 16-20MP high ISO sensor? Or both? How long would it take to create and build 12-16 lenses for this and a new flash system (the current flashes are not nearly good enough for a pro grade system).

All this would require a huge investment for what? 2% of the market if they are lucky? Don't do it Pentax. You build great APS-c cameras, keep doing that.

Actually, the mistake has been (and so far continues to be) NOT "going full frame." Who do you think will buy Pentax APS-C cameras? Do you honestly believe that Pentax is going to increase its paltry market share (which is nowhere near the 5% figure you mentioned, in dSLRs certainly - more like 1.5% last I heard) with more "preaching to the (ever shrinking) choir APS-C offerings? Every "they can't compete in that (i.e., FF) market" comment applies every bit as much to the APS-C dSLR market, in fact even more so, since there is more competition in that market, and since the margins are lower. If you honestly believe Pentax is incapable of competing, then they should just fold up their tents, because the Ricoh dreams of growth are nothing more than dreams if their Pentax line up doesn't include FF dSLRs. There's also nothing preventing Pentax from making both FF and APS-C dSLRs, which I'm sure they would continue to do. This irrational view of Pentax FF = the end of Pentax APS-C is incorrect. However, like the idea or not, refusal to make a FF dSLR will mean that the K-mount will continue to whither away and die, and THAT will mean no more Pentax APS-C dSLRs.

Will it take the end of any third party lens support (i.e., for Sigma to pull the plug completely, as opposed to keeping a few K-mount lenses in their line up in limited numbers, including pretty much none of their high-end lenses) for the "APS-C only is the way to go" crowd to open their eyes to the fact that there's not going to be a K-mount if Pentax doesn't offer a FF dSLR soon?