Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-04-2012, 09:15 PM   #436
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote

I don't believe the "Nikon designed this and that" ideas that Nikon and respective evangelists like to spread either. Show me one Nikon patent related to sensor design. The A/D technology that makes current Sony sensors rock is a Sony invention.
I guess this is only one side of the coin ...

Please, look up http://www.sensorgen.info/ to see that there seem to be two breeds of sensors at Nikon: #1 with high QE and high RN (D3s) and #2 with medium QE and low RN (D7000).

#2 is Sony and we can see how they make grogress wrt QE.

#1 seems to be another source.

03-05-2012, 12:36 AM   #437
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
I guess this is only one side of the coin ...
I certainly have no proof that Nikon never was involved in sensor design. My main point is that Nikon's design influence on Sony sensors is often vastly exaggerated.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
#1 seems to be another source.
Could be just Nikon buying again this time from another manufacturer.

Has anyone ever found any Nikon patents related to sensor design?
03-05-2012, 02:44 AM   #438
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,512
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
To be honest it is not in the amount of pixels, but in the image quality. The D3s wins easy from the K-5. A $3000 camera is not for people who can't make propper pictures (who need a lot of cropping) but for those who know what frame they want.
Come on, there are many more reasons to do cropping than that you "can't take proper pictures"! My main concern was support for existing lenses, but take for instance nature photographers that do both landscape (can't have enough pixels for that!) and wildlife photography (cropping is very useful for that, especially if you don't want to carry a super heavy super tele around).
03-05-2012, 04:47 AM   #439
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Could be just Nikon buying again this time from another manufacturer.
Sure but then Nikon uses a multiple sources strategy which empowers them wrt Sony.

But I do also agree that it isn't to the point where Nikon can push Sony to keep their technology out of hands of competitors. For some limited grace periods, yes. In general, no.

03-06-2012, 06:46 AM   #440
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,271
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
You have unrealistic opinion about the cost of making aproduct like this. $500 part in product sold at $2000 is unheard of except for products that sells in the tenth of millions like computers or cell phones. In addition, $500 is only a small part of the cost; eg the magnesium body alone of the MZ-S (I happen to have the price on that) cost $200. Then theres the shutter, the finder and all the electronics of the camera. Then theres manufacturing cost which I have no idea about but it cost money to have thosands of enployees and big factories. Then there developing cost which are in the tenth of million dollars range. End camera stores have 30% mark up. The distributors probably around 15%. And lets not forget that the manufacturer need significant profit in order to be able to dfevelop the follow up. Then theres transport cost. A Nikon D800 is dirt cheap for what it costs....
end camera stores have at best on bodies 15% Pal (i spent 25 years in that business) the distributor actually has higher margin than the retailer becaue they are also responsible for funding the warranty (that is not a head office funded thing for the most part)
the D800 is not dirt cheap and in fact like all high end products it is probably working on much bigger margins for the manufacturer/distributor chain (retailer is likely stuck with the same margin %) I know how many parts there are in a camera, and between a K5 replacement and a K1 FF the main cost difference will be in the sensor the rest are fixed and in fact since parts are shared across the line they have lower average cost. so if the sensor costs $450-500 more $750 more at retail is is a realistic assumption (taking a 50% markup - 33% GM in other words on the additional part cost) $2200 is therefore a very doable price point. not optimistic at all.
then there are the intangibles to take into account. Ricoh and Canon are fierce rivals in the copier market. In capturing the share from Canon ricoh at first did it on slimmer margins and aggressive marketing, moving to value added later in the cycle. Apparently one of their stated objectives is to go head to head with Canon for market share in the longer term. So what actually comes to market and how it is priced depends on how much hardball they want to play
03-12-2012, 04:24 PM   #441
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,149
QuoteOriginally posted by eddie1960 Quote
end camera stores have at best on bodies 15% Pal (i spent 25 years in that business) the distributor actually has higher margin than the retailer becaue they are also responsible for funding the warranty (that is not a head office funded thing for the most part)
the D800 is not dirt cheap and in fact like all high end products it is probably working on much bigger margins for the manufacturer/distributor chain (retailer is likely stuck with the same margin %) I know how many parts there are in a camera, and between a K5 replacement and a K1 FF the main cost difference will be in the sensor the rest are fixed and in fact since parts are shared across the line they have lower average cost. so if the sensor costs $450-500 more $750 more at retail is is a realistic assumption (taking a 50% markup - 33% GM in other words on the additional part cost) $2200 is therefore a very doable price point. not optimistic at all.
Yes, I insist that you are totally unrealistic in your assesment. If you had been even remotely right Pentax (and Sony, Olympus and the rest) would have an FF camera ten years ago. While it is true that FF may have higher margins for Nikon and Canon (although rumor has it that the first Canon 5D was a loss leader), they sell far fewer of then than the APS cameras (they sell 20 times more). Pentax cannot sell many FF cameras compared to Nikon and Canon; particularly at a great overhead....
BTW the dealer mark up in my part of the world is 30%....
03-13-2012, 06:07 AM   #442
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,271
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Yes, I insist that you are totally unrealistic in your assesment. If you had been even remotely right Pentax (and Sony, Olympus and the rest) would have an FF camera ten years ago. While it is true that FF may have higher margins for Nikon and Canon (although rumor has it that the first Canon 5D was a loss leader), they sell far fewer of then than the APS cameras (they sell 20 times more). Pentax cannot sell many FF cameras compared to Nikon and Canon; particularly at a great overhead....
BTW the dealer mark up in my part of the world is 30%....
Dealers in your part of the world are blessed then (but it explains the price variance between Europe and the USA)
Even the biggest dealers over here don't get 30% margins on anything in the camera hardware (or video hardware) accessories OTOH can have as much a 75% GM (margins are different than markups - on $1000 retail a 30% margin is a $700 cost, a 30% markup would be a cost of $770 which equates to a 23% margin - in retail you always measure yourself on margin)
As for unrealistic as to price potential I doubt anyone could achieve it years ago, it's only the declining cost of sensor production that would make it possible. if in fact the sensor prices i worked from are correct the number is realistic (all other costs being the same) - witness the ability of canon and Nikon to now sell D700 and 5d@ for $2200. Could you do it with the latest 36mp sensor no not a chance because that is not likely a $500 sensor
I highly doubt the 5D2 was a loss leader BTW. I've never in 25 years of CE retail dealt with a high end product sold as a loss leader in any category. the 399-499 camera is going to be razor thin margins though, meant for bulk displays in warehouse stores and working on stupidly low margins (quite likely less than 10% GM) for a full line dealer they will move 75% of the clients up a level by actually selling the client onbenefits of the step model where they will make as much as double the GM the entry model offers. Salespeople that just move the boxes on the lowend will go broke as the commissions will be next to nothing
03-13-2012, 07:46 AM   #443
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado USA
Posts: 1,337
USA Camera dealers make $300 on Nikon D800 and D800e

About 10% profit earned from each one sold here in the States:


Nikon D800/D800E cost to dealers in the US | Nikon Rumors


Happy Full Frame Shopping

03-13-2012, 08:00 AM   #444
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,271
QuoteOriginally posted by Samsungian Quote
USA Camera dealers make $300 on Nikon D800 and D800e

About 10% profit earned from each one sold here in the States:


Nikon D800/D800E cost to dealers in the US | Nikon Rumors


Happy Full Frame Shopping
that's about what i figured/ Nikon will have higher margins for themselves than the retailer does. Average retail margin electronics has dropped dramatically since i got into it in the early eighties. Would bet average GM is down 15% or more from the 80's (As an example TV used to average 23-25 points GM and now is 10 or less
04-22-2012, 11:06 PM   #445
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 6
Pentax Full-Frame

Adam,

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be nice for the Pentax image, if they we're to come out with a full-frame DSLR. In view of the fact that they are searching for ways to become a more viable
market option (price restructering with the hope that this will lead to Pentax products being stocked by the avearge camera store), a FF could become a reality in the not-too-distant future.
Whether it makes economic sense is open to speculation. While a FF might be good for the corporate image, is it a viable option? With the current state of development of the APS-C sensor,
is a FF really needed? Contributors to this and similar forums can talk until they're blue in the face about how they want Pentax to come out with a FF. I would venture to say that the numbers
of those making the transition might be relatively small. I for one, don't anticipate ever making the move. I've been a Pentax owner since the summer of 1970 when I purchased the Spotmatic
in the Exchange aboard the carrier Saratoga (my only other option at the time was the Nikon F). I've owned nothing but Pentax cameras since then. I've purchased Pentax point & shoots for
my wife and two granddaughters. The oldest granddaughter, 14 years old, recently became a proud owner of my first DSLR, the ist D. I now have the K-10D and K-5, along with a total of
seven lenses for them. With the money invested in my present equipment, at my age (I'm nearly 72), I couldn't justify essentially starting over purchasing FF equipment. In any case, I think
the need for a FF camera that many voice, is a perceived need, more than a real one. Nevertheless, if Pentax thinks that financially they can pull it off, I say go for it. I'll remain happy with my
APS-C equipment.
04-22-2012, 11:54 PM   #446
Site Supporter
clover's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Near Paris
Posts: 141
My 2 cents :

One can expect taht the Pentax FF can be as successfull as the 645D, because it is something lots of us are waiting for. But it will only last for 2-3years ( as the 645D) if it is too expensive.

Most important for me, is that the Pentax DSLR FF has to be good in quality. So it will not have the same end as Sony Alpha 900-850...
04-23-2012, 05:42 AM   #447
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,271
QuoteOriginally posted by clover Quote
My 2 cents :

One can expect taht the Pentax FF can be as successfull as the 645D, because it is something lots of us are waiting for. But it will only last for 2-3years ( as the 645D) if it is too expensive.

Most important for me, is that the Pentax DSLR FF has to be good in quality. So it will not have the same end as Sony Alpha 900-850...
You realise the Sony's are being replaced with new models later this year (Sony has done a crap job of marketing them as well, with what ammounted to a field of dreams marketing campaign - "if you build it they will come" )
04-23-2012, 07:13 AM   #448
Site Supporter
clover's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Near Paris
Posts: 141
My hope is that the coming Pentax FF DSLR will provide better images thant the D800 for cheaper. If not, nobody can expect the Pentax to do more than satisfy Pentax Owners.

THe Sony Alpha 900 is half price of Nikon D3x but also not as good in image Quality without using DxO or Lightroom.
04-23-2012, 09:59 AM   #449
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,271
QuoteOriginally posted by clover Quote
My hope is that the coming Pentax FF DSLR will provide better images thant the D800 for cheaper. If not, nobody can expect the Pentax to do more than satisfy Pentax Owners.

The Sony Alpha 900 is half price of Nikon D3x but also not as good in image Quality without using DxO or Lightroom.
I would be astonished if the coming Pentax exceeds theD800 performance. I fully expect whatever Pentax releases to have the 24mp sensor rumoured for the Sony A99 not the 36mp monster the D800 has. No matter what Pentax introduces it will disappoint some people. even if they introduce 2 targeting different FF market segments people will find something to complain about

a 24mp FF is a good first step as long as the retail is not the same as the D800 (which this year really changed the landscape making it difficult even for the established guys like Canon)

whatever comes I'm sure it will be quite interesting, offering some things the competition doesn't and missing some things the competition has. that is pretty much the Pentax signature design concept
04-24-2012, 06:21 PM   #450
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Innsbruck
Posts: 283
Well to tell the truth iam not so optimistic about the pentax FF. I fear that pentax will deliver a half finished product, a 24MP thing which wont outclass the D800 in ANY area and it will be adsurdly high priced at the beginning
Again we will try to make the best of it and will start talking about the second SD-Slot(which is missing) which nobody uses, the AF which is "fast enough" for everything and AF-Problems which just appear on very rare occasitions.

I just hope that Pentax starts to develop complet new lenses. High quality, FAST AF, well build etc.

I think Pentax has almost everything covered (in regards to the focal length) but i think IF you want to place such a product you need fast and very high quality lenses in a complet line up. I dont think that people are attracted by the idea of buying from third partys.

I dont mean that third party lenses are bad( owning a Sigma 70-200 myself), but i think it isnt a plus to say to a customer " well for this focal length pentax doesnt offer anything real good, but here you can have a sigma"

So iam much more interested in the way pentax is going with its lenses.
Also i would like to see a clear nomenclature about the lenses. For example

DA L(ight) = cheap, plastic etc.
DA = normal, WR
DA* = high quality WR + SDM(or faster)
DF(ull)A = normal FF, WR
DF(ull)A* = high quality WR, SDM(or faster)

And make sure that every (new) DA is actually WR
SDMs(or faster) will JUST be applied in DA* or DFA*
Nothing like the DA17-70 SDM......


Me, for myself dont see a greater scheme pentax is applying and i thing that is bad overall.
Yes, i know that Pentax had two new owners in the last 4 years, but if ricoh want to start with something, this would be a good thing too.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, aps-c, camera, capacity, company, d4s, dont, ff, followers, frame, full-frame, idea, im, iso, k-3, lens, lenses, letter, light, lw/ph, nikon, page, pentax, release, time, traffic
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The full frame Pentax that never was dj_saunter Pentax DSLR Discussion 23 05-06-2011 04:06 AM
Pentax and Full Frame oppositz Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 03-18-2011 09:39 AM
Full frame pentax cem.kumuk Pentax DSLR Discussion 11 11-12-2010 03:13 PM
Pentax and Full Frame... Shutter-bug Photographic Technique 60 11-03-2010 10:03 AM
Pentax A 50/1.2 on Full Frame aegisphan Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 23 10-28-2010 04:16 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:57 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top