[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Better than the epic fail of the Q.

The Q is a fail? I love mine. Have you ever tried one?

Oh and just because the MX-1 isn't what YOU want, Spare Tire (why can't Americans spell "tyre" properly), doesn't make it junk. It's not what I want, either, but it's a decent P&S as far as I can tell.

[Kunzite]

The Q seems to be doing quite well in its home market; the MX-1 is a very interesting product (unexpectedly big and heavy for a compact, but well made and a nice camera). And complaining about them won't help getting the FF faster.
I can't wait to see the endless stream of complaints when the Pentax will finally announce the FF...

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

I can't wait to see the endless stream of complaints when the Pentax will finally announce the FF...

Yes, it will be interesting. I went Nikon to get FF,but I use my K-5 most of the time because it does most things that I want very well. If Pentax bring out a decently specced FF (and I'm sure if they do, it will have a great specification), I shall definitely buy one. Hell, if they bring out a APS-C DSLR that is even better than my K-5, I will get one of those, too!

[mecrox]

Hi everyone. First off, in the interests of full disclosure I am also a Canon FF user (5DMkII) and have used Nikon FF (D700) before that. I also have used Pentax gear -- back in the day it was my first DSLR (K10d). This week I bought a K-01 w/40mm. I am wanting a daily beater for my 365 project and the price was great. I am also still wishing Pentax could get there act together because I still have some irrational brand loyalty.

So I would love to see a Pentax FF. I would buy one. However, I'm not sure the business case is very strong for one. FF/Fast Lenses/Low Prices/Low Volumes = not sustainable. You have to have really great margins to justify such a low volume product and since P/R is not vertically integrated (they source all their sensors) there is no way for them to gain a competitive advantage through controlling costs/supply chain management. The only place left to gain margins is either through product distribution or upping the sticker price.

No offense to any posters here, but from my work in manufacturing I know from first hand experience that having a great product doesn't mean 1) It will sell; and, 2) when it does sell that you will make any money. Pentax, beloved as they are, are in business to make money off the sale of their equipment. Yes, you and I would be happy, but are there enough of us? And how many have left in the last five years?

So I propose we all try our hand at a little SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) activity. I'll start it out, but I know from reading the posts that there are those who are better positioned to flush these out a bit more.
... [snip ...

I think thank you for your astute analysis. And we can be sure that Ricoh will themselves have done this with their new camera division probably a few times already.

The biggest threat for me is this: looking across all sorts of imaging devices, the running is being made by monster corporations in the mobile phone sphere and many of them are software and tech industry outfits. Even Rambus recently got on the bandwagon with a proposed new sensor technology - an IT vampire from yesteryear with a taste for patents. The innovations (and the patents) are coming from these folks, not from the traditional camera companies which do not seem able to understand what is happening to them. So I'd suggest that by 2020 the landscape may look like this: there is Canon, Nikon (bought by a monster corp after it ran out of financial gas), Sony and ... the usual mobile/tech and software suspects. All other traditional consumer camera companies (not the high-end specialists like Phase One) have closed down, gone to the wall, etc.

So I might be making plans to ensure that this didn't happen to my outfit, which it will if my outfit simply produces dinky P&S cams and clunky old DSLRs. It'll be another Nokia, down the tubes by thinking it was all about the lenses, the flashes, the WR bodies whereas it's about what you can do with the software and a very high-tech sensor. TBH, FF is neither here not there in the bigger scheme. I'd be pretty surprised if there was any financial case for Pentax making a conventional FF DSLR. There may well be much, much more important and financially significant things for them to spend their time on.

What some folks may well object to in the "No Pentax FF" scheme is what it implies: that Pentax cannot continue to keep a finger in every pie and aspire to rival Canon or Nikon - on the contrary, to stay alive Pentax will have to face the music, accept it's a pretty small player and cede markets - in this case, the FF DSLR - where it cannot make a sensible business case against huge and entrenched competitors.

[Medium FormatPro]

how big the FF market is in Japan for example

FF saturates quite the market throughout Asia. I travel throughout Asia several times a year. It's beyond belief how many FF's one sees there. And it's not just in Japan, it's South korea, Singapore, China, etc... Truly unbelieveable.

Also to think of how much larger the market will get as China is becoming more and more of a power in the world. Not to be confused with political discussion; just fact based... China will very soon become the world's largest economic superpower.

[Spare Tire]

It may be OK to be late to party where everyone else is drunk. you said it yourself: Canon and Ninon mirrorless are not creating much buzz, and m43 has stalled. Fuji is pricey and niche and the company far too reliant on compact revenues which its hybrid RF series cannot price compete on.

My point is that none of those guys could displace the µ43 group or sony who are the early comers and are taking up all the sales. None of them could do something differently enough that warrants a change of mount, except fuji maybe who's really different, as the GXR could have been but saddly ricoh dropped the whole thing.

[Aristophanes]

That was to be expected. As soon as a camera isn't pocketable anymore it's going to need a camera bag. And for most people, a camera that needs a bag just isn't really a compact, or not compact enough. In that respect a compact ILC is a contradiction.

To a large degree, yes. once you go compact on sensor and lens, WA lens options narrow as does zoom, so you're shooting in the sweet spot of tourist-o-ramas, portraits, group portraits, and the occasional long shot. Small sensors cannot do wide very well, and zooms are a problem just getting the right stability. The MX-1 has the right lens for multiple uses and IQ is already limited by the sensor in any case, so primes are something of a waste (or a marketing gimmick). I will seriously consider a version 2 with better AF and video as my compact. Right sensor and lens for snap with very good IQ. Nice flash.

And as for a compact ILC, no one knows this better than Pentax:



Pentax Auto 110

Pentax Auto 110 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[gazonk]

Canon and Ninon mirrorless are not creating much buzz, and m43 has stalled.

Last week's stats in Japan according to kakaku.com:
1) Olympus E-PL3
2) Nikon D600
3) Canon EOS-M

Pentax is also strong in that list, and the winner is K-5 II s:

6) K-5 II s (right above 5dMkIII and D800!)
14) Q10 double kit
20) K-30 18-135 kit
25) Q
38) Q10 single kit
50) K-30 body
51) K-01 :-)
52) K-5 II 18-135 kit

[Aristophanes]

The Q is a fail? I love mine. Have you ever tried one?

Oh and just because the MX-1 isn't what YOU want, Spare Tire (why can't Americans spell "tyre" properly), doesn't make it junk. It's not what I want, either, but it's a decent P&S as far as I can tell.

Yes, I tried one.

It's a great design with a too small sensor and too large price.

The MX-1 has the sensor the Q should have had.

[Aristophanes]

The Sony NEX series and the Canon EOS-M are APS-C and about as compact as one can get with an ILC system at affordable prices.

m4/3 will struggle against similar priced and sized APS-C sensor cams, just like 4/3 got bit by the same bigger bug. it's only a matter of time. I also think Nikon's V series is really interesting (that flash system), but far too expensive for the IQ bang on a smaller sensor.

BTW--Nikon makes $$$, while Olympus bleeds. FF is the difference. Nikon has mostly abandoned compacts as cameraphones eats into that mainstay of Olympus and Fuji and Panasonic (and Canon and Sony to some extent).

[EchoOscar]

BTW--Nikon makes $$$, while Olympus bleeds. FF is the difference. Nikon has mostly abandoned compacts as cameraphones eats into that mainstay of Olympus and Fuji and Panasonic (and Canon and Sony to some extent).

"Yet strangely, amongst all this collapse of compacts, Nikon has announced 14 new compact camera models already this year. That makes for over 150 different Coolpix models in the 12 years I've been tracking those releases."
-Thom Hogan

Only today Nikon announced four new compacts, even one with an APS-C sensor. Doesn't quite look like Nikon have abandoned compacts or the p&s market, does it.

Nevertheless, it does indeed look like Canon and Nikon were the only ones who still showed profit in 2012, albeit even their profits were shrinking. All others showed loss. Anyway, to get back on topic, all that doesn't look too good for the Pentax 35mm full frame DSLR rumours, either. Camera sales in general are declining, and the people in the Pentax board and in accounting dept. are no doubt fully aware of it.

[Anvh]

FF saturates quite the market throughout Asia. I travel throughout Asia several times a year. It's beyond belief how many FF's one sees there. And it's not just in Japan, it's South korea, Singapore, China, etc... Truly unbelieveable.

Also to think of how much larger the market will get as China is becoming more and more of a power in the world. Not to be confused with political discussion; just fact based... China will very soon become the world's largest economic superpower.

I need to take your word for it =]
I know that they can get gadget grazy sometimes but i expected the smaller formats to work better there.
China is indeed booming... not so good for the world.

[Aristophanes]

"Yet strangely, amongst all this collapse of compacts, Nikon has announced 14 new compact camera models already this year. That makes for over 150 different Coolpix models in the 12 years I've been tracking those releases."
-Thom Hogan

Only today Nikon announced four new compacts, even one with an APS-C sensor. Doesn't quite look like Nikon have abandoned compacts or the p&s market, does it.

Nevertheless, it does indeed look like Canon and Nikon were the only ones who still showed profit in 2012, albeit even their profits were shrinking. All others showed loss. Anyway, to get back on topic, all that doesn't look too good for the Pentax 35mm full frame DSLR rumours, either. Camera sales in general are declining, and the people in the Pentax board and in accounting dept. are no doubt fully aware of it.

Nikon's APS-C compact is $1,149 MSRP.

That's a sure way to differentiate from the cameraphone crowd. Interesting development.

[EchoOscar]

Nikon's APS-C compact is $1,149 MSRP.

That's a sure way to differentiate from the cameraphone crowd. Interesting development.

On the other hand, a $99 Nikon Coolpix S2700 might be quite a different story. Although I'm not quite sure what your point with this even is, but anyway.
As for the APS-C compact, Nikon are arriving very late into that game. Even later than Canon. Big-sensor premium compacts have been around for several years now, so they aren't really headline news any longer. Even though the new camera isn't that bad. No doubt they will sell a handful of those, perhaps even a few handfuls, but mostly because of the Nikon logo on it. It won't be the high volume article in their product line. Their cheaper compacts will sell clearly more, as will their entry level DSLR's.
But who cares about some Nikon compacts, in a Pentax forum thread dedicated to Pentax ff camera, anyway.

[Uluru]

Nikon's APS-C compact is $1,149 MSRP.

That's a sure way to differentiate from the cameraphone crowd. Interesting development.

I'm not quite sure about the clear differentiation from the cameraphone crowd.

Nikon asks a serious amount of money for a small, fixed lens camera, which doesn't have an OVF/EVF. An iPhone for example can take quite nice pictures too, edit them immediately, it's even thinner and lighter and comes with everything else that camera cannot (albeit iPhone is not that good in extreme situations like a dedicated camera).

To me, it is very hard to convince an average smartphone user to buy into this. Or even a DSLR photographer, who carries a smartphone around.
I see this camera targeted exclusively at a very small percentage of photo nerds, and Nikon fans, willing to spend extra $ for compactness and great IQ.

On the other hand, X100s clearly differentiates. It's the looks, feel, the way OVF/EVF work together. Good materials. Great quality feel. Durable. Looks like a very good investment. That camera is clearly best of all APS-C fixed lens cameras because it does differentiate.

Thus I see this as Nikon's attempt to grab much larger margin while capitalising only and exclusively on camera's sensor size — and offering nothing else beside. The development of this camera wasn't a big budget breaker either, it's perhaps almost nil and close to every other Nikon's Coolpix pocketcam reiteration.

So instead of 15 permutations of the same, they've issued 14 permutations of the same, and one extra camera with larger sensor, knowing they will sell them less but hoping to get a bit better margin on that one, thus keeping everything same.

That is why it does look like a half-hearted attempt. No serious thought behind it, nothing that really makes one want it immediately.

I hope Ricoh will not do the same with their GRD V. Cameras after the 2012 photography industry-wide crisis need not only a "large sensor" but also more refined, clearer purpose, capture attention and cause a strong drive to buy and hold beside smartphones. They must clearly show great value, great investment. Or they will simply stay invisible.

I think market is becoming smarter and is changing buying habits. Rather spend same money but on something that will last. Numbers show that too: that is why people still steadily buy DSLRs. DSLRs do not look like joke cameras, they are perceived as good investments in the future.