[falconeye]

For once and for all... If Pentax enters the FF arena then it will be with a product which does not need to insert itself into the established duopoly. There are lots of other opportunities for a Pentax fullframe camera. Please think outside the box and far away from the ugly Canons and Nikons

I tend to to agree. However ...

The K-5 is the closest possible competition to the D7000 I can think of and still it is a success (I know some say it rather is Nikon copying the K-7, but that doesn't alter my point).

Look, I would love for Falk's camera to become a reality. I would buy one in a heartbeat.

I just don't believe it is economically possible to meet that price point with all of those features.

Eventually, we don't know.
But the $750 my proposed camera is more expensive than a K-5 buys a lot.
FF sensors aren't as expensive as most people tend to think (only roughly 3-4x as expensive for the manufacturer if it has large enough reticles, i.e., less than half the extra budget where the other half would have to be extra margin of course) ... and 35MP don't need that much more processing power than a NEX7's 24MP.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 01-26-2012 at 11:53 AM.

[Frogfish]

And how many would that be?

Maybe 1% pixel peep enough to care.

By far the vast majority of DSLR purchaser have little desire to "progress". It's not a photographic hobby for them, they take snapshots.

Well the answer to that is simple ... how does anyone start in photography ? P&S ? Bridge ? Entry DSLR ? And then how do they progress to better cameras and lenses ? Of course the % take-up at each level is lower than the previous one - that is the same in any sport / hobby. The more serious it becomes the fewer the number of people taking that step up, still the market is there isn't it. You still need new blood coming into the brand and Pentax have seen more over the past two years than ever before ...... so I don't see your point. If it was 1% before and it's still 1% then that 1% is now far more new shooters than ever before.

Every FF / K5 / D7000 / D300s / 7D owner started somewhere and today more and more people are entering into the DSLR market ... I live in China and can tell you for a fact that the take-up is phenomenal, India is just around the corner too. Just because Europe and the USA is stalling doesn't mean the market has dried up or isn't there. Last year I stated on here that the battleground of the future for camera manufacturers will be China and Asia (naturally with 2/3 of the global population - who are becoming more and more affluent) and I'm sure global sales will soon reflect that (if they don't already) just as they do with cars (2012 will see China surpass Germany as their largest market for both BMW and Mercedes).

[eddie1960]

Look, I would love for Falk's camera to become a reality. I would buy one in a heartbeat.

I just don't believe it is economically possible to meet that price point with all of those features.

It's my natural state to be pessimistic about the things I want to happen. That way, I can only be delighted when I'm wrong instead of being let down by unrealistic expectations.

I'm always amazed by how low tech pricing can get in a short period of time. the first 480p 16:9 plasma I sold went for close to $25000. a few years later i sold a 720P "hi Def" Plasma to my investment guy with a matching stand for almost $8000. 10 years on i can buy a better 1080p plasma for $400-450, and I could buy the 103" Panasonic for less than that original one. The one thing you can be sure of with electronics (and cameras are that now) is that they get better yearly and costs come down rapidly. FF has sat in that high price category in part because no-one wanted to disrupt a cash cow that got more profitable as time went on. The K5 launch price would have been highly profitable for Pentax, the current price at 30% less I'm guessing is still quite profitable bu more off volume than margins. Sony failed at the $2000 camera but it really was a POS compared to the competition. pair that with the fact that their lenses for it were at the time more expensive than the canikon offerings and they did virtually nothing to promote them makes the lower price Pentax can't succeed argument i've heard invalid. Pentax would fail with a FF at that price if they built a Sony certainly. But they invariably outperform Sony with Sony's sensors and have better build and ergonomics (IMO anyway)

[rjcassara]

I'm always amazed by how low tech pricing can get in a short period of time. the first 480p 16:9 plasma I sold went for close to $25000. a few years later i sold a 720P "hi Def" Plasma to my investment guy with a matching stand for almost $8000. 10 years on i can buy a better 1080p plasma for $400-450, and I could buy the 103" Panasonic for less than that original one. The one thing you can be sure of with electronics (and cameras are that now) is that they get better yearly and costs come down rapidly. FF has sat in that high price category in part because no-one wanted to disrupt a cash cow that got more profitable as time went on

I also love watching the rapid price drops in tech....however that won't help much with a FF sensor.

Here's a photography forum discussing when FF prices would get to the $1500 mark....four years ago.

Full frame sensor future prices

And here is how one user there summed up the problem when comparing the cost of other electronics to sensors.

"Simple economics may prevent this technology from "trickling down". The facts are simple. Smaller sensors = greater utilisation of a platter and greater yield rates of individual sensors.

Even as technology improves one thing that doesn't change is typically the cost of the platter. Now if they can get 100% yield rates, then full frame sensors may become more affordable. But the reality is that if yield rates improve it also becomes much more profitable to produce APS sensors.

This simply isn't as easy as computer processors as there's always ways to cram more transistors on the same wafer, but in sensor technology the only thing that happens is the megapixels increase. The cost of production remains the same, and is likely to remain the same unless there is some major breakthrough in manufacturing. "

While I'm sure Canon and Nikon are enjoying fairly healthy margins on their aging FF cameras, since the rest of the camera's tech is probably cheaper now. The fact is that those FF sensors are very expensive and always will be.

[falconeye]

I also love watching the rapid price drops in tech....however that won't help much with a FF sensor.

The link you provided didn't contain any information, but I grasp what you wanted to express.

However, this analysis falls short. It is true that CMOS real estate prices fall much slowlier than transistor prices. But they do fall too. It is because the machines making the wafers at a given tech become cheaper (more commodity), because imaging CMOS sensors don't need the highest integration level (newest tech -- actually, they want to have fairly large transistors) and because yield rates are constantly improving.

As a consequence, the price difference in making a 4/3 sensor or an APSC sensor has disappeared, or almost has. The sweet spot once was 4/3 and now is APSC. There was a time where 4/3 dSLRs were cheaper than APSC dSLRs and we almost can't believe it anymore

And the sweet spot keeps moving. Slowly but surely. Draw your own conclusions...

[Aristophanes]

I also love watching the rapid price drops in tech....however that won't help much with a FF sensor.

The average price for an FF camera has increased, not decreased over the last 3 years. With Sony not offering a budget model all the $$'s went to the higher-priced Canon's and Nikon's driving the average up. The Leica M9 also does that.

It is true that CMOS real estate prices fall much slowlier than transistor prices. But they do fall too. It is because the machines making the wafers at a given tech become cheaper (more commodity), because imaging CMOS sensors don't need the highest integration level (newest tech -- actually, they want to have fairly large transistors) and because yield rates are constantly improving.

In order for the price to fall, they likely need more competition amongst fabs. This is function of volume per fab, or yield.

My understanding is Canon has one, and Sony another. The CCD sensor fab ex-Kodak does not really apply here.

With margins so high on FF, there is little incentive to bing another platter manufacturing system online when the current ones can keep up with demand without driving prices down. FF has not reached commodity production yields. Nikon buys all Sony can pump out, Canon rides the higher margins when P&S volumes are stagnant, and Sony makes more from being an industrial supplier than from their own retail FF cameras.

[falconeye]

In order for the price to fall, they likely need more competition amongst fabs. This is function of volume per fab, or yield.

My remark applied to manufacturing cost. You're right, w/o competition, it doesn't translate into cheaper supply for camera vendors. Btw, yield is unrelated to volume.

OTOH, new sensor fabs go online all the time. Sony just invested heavily to expand capacity. The time won't be far when there is over capacity and it is then when I expect supply cost to drop. Or when margins for mobile phone sensors become too small.

You may want to have a look at the following document: -> http://www.icinsights.com/data/articles/documents/265.pdf

If you analyze numbers (and combine with 300M smartphones sold in 2010), you'll see that smart phones still are the driving force of the CMOS imaging sensor industry (62% revenue) but the value per smart phone ($10) is very low. So, it would be plausible to assume that the higher end markets gain momementum.

---

Last edited by falconeye; 01-26-2012 at 06:44 PM.

[jsherman999]

Every FF / K5 / D7000 / D300s / 7D owner started somewhere and today more and more people are entering into the DSLR market ... I live in China and can tell you for a fact that the take-up is phenomenal, India is just around the corner too. Just because Europe and the USA is stalling doesn't mean the market has dried up or isn't there. Last year I stated on here that the battleground of the future for camera manufacturers will be China and Asia (naturally with 2/3 of the global population - who are becoming more and more affluent) and I'm sure global sales will soon reflect that (if they don't already) just as they do with cars (2012 will see China surpass Germany as their largest market for both BMW and Mercedes).

+1

China is General Motors' largest global market right now. As I've said before, as the Interchangeable Lens balloon expands, the part of that balloon surface that represents FF expands as well. Even if the ratio of FF/aps-c shooters is lower in China than the rest of the world - and it may not be - it's still such a huge market in absolute terms that it's going to mean a lot of FF sales... for any manufacturer that has a FF body available.



"... General Motors and its joint ventures sold a record 2,547,171 vehicles in China in 2011, an average of one car or truck every 12 seconds in its largest global market. GM’s sales were up 8.3 percent from the previous high of 2,351,610 vehicles sold in 2010.

GM’s Shanghai GM and SAIC-GM-Wuling joint ventures along with all of its passenger car brands experienced record domestic demand, enabling GM to remain the sales leader among global automakers in China for the seventh consecutive year."

[beagley]

Pentax has a history of offering cameras that were smaller and lighter than the competition. Pentax MX was half the weight of the Nikon F2. The film *ist was incredibly light. What a coup it would be if Pentax came out with the smallest lightest Full Frame DIgital SLR.

I agree with those yearning for more high end lenses, but what I want most is on the wide side: Either a 10 mm prime for APS-C or a 12mm for Full Frame. Not a zoom, because zooms are heavier, slower, and they are seldom used at anything but the widest setting

[Clavius]

Pentax has a history of offering cameras that were smaller and lighter than the competition. Pentax MX was half the weight of the Nikon F2. The film *ist was incredibly light. What a coup it would be if Pentax came out with the smallest lightest Full Frame DIgital SLR.

I agree with those yearning for more high end lenses, but what I want most is on the wide side: Either a 10 mm prime for APS-C or a 12mm for Full Frame. Not a zoom, because zooms are heavier, slower, and they are seldom used at anything but the widest setting

I agree with everything... except the part about zooms. If someone uses only the widest setting of that zoom, then I think that's that persons personal syle. They prefer primes, or are used to primes, and treat zooms like primes. I myself love the DA 10-17 for it's zoom capability.

[Anvh]

The fact though that all legacy lenses and new FA and DA lenses (using a reduced image circle mode) would work on a Pentax FF, instantly offering hundreds of lens choices - even though most are used not new, blows that objection out of the water thereby negating the need to transition to a different brand.

They will work but there is no advantage to speak off.
You buy FF because of the larger sensor and if you start using DA lenses you still be working with a cropped sensor, it simply doesn't make sense as an upgrade path.
As a new pentax user with only DA lenses you also need to buy FA lenses if you want to have the benefits of an FF camera.

Since you need to buy new lenses it doesn't matter what brand you use, you can easily switch to Canon or Nikon right now if you want.

[Anvh]

Then don't buy a FF, but you aren't the only person in the market and many do want a FF (BTW some of your DA lenses will work on FF at least they do on film)

Also I imagine any FF wil have a masking option like the nikon does allowing you to use your DA lenses on an apsc mak. if that mask is applied to a 36mp sensor you will effectively get the same pixel density and resolution as a K5, you then could build a FF lens collection while still using your existing lenses.

I don't get the absolute hatred some people have for the idea of a FF. Not every camera Pentax (or any other company for that matter) is going to be intended for all the customers, Pentax has 3 mounts right now Q,K,645 and I'm sure you don't have an issue with them offering them to the market segments that buy them. It's not as if anyone is saying Build a FF K mount oh and by the way can that pesky apsc stuff

It's not an hatred but i don't understand the value of using DA lenses on FF camera.


If i only have DA lenses why on earth would i buy an FF camera for those lenses instead off an APS-C, could you tell me that?
It's like putting cheap brand-less tires under an Aston Martin, it just doesn't make sense...

[jsherman999]

It's not an hatred but i don't understand the value of using DA lenses on FF camera.


If i only have DA lenses why on earth would i buy an FF camera for those lenses instead off an APS-C, could you tell me that?
It's like putting cheap brand-less tires under an Aston Martin, it just doesn't make sense...

Granted that if you only have DA lenses, have no desire to explore the FA or D-FA lenses, and you feel no limitations from your current body, then your incentive to upgrade to FF is lower.

The 'aps-c mode' idea is valuable for folks who have one or two apsc-only lenses in addition to FF-capable lenses and would simply like the option to shoot them all on a new FF body. Don't discount this option until you've had the opportunity to try it.

I shoot my 'DX' (aps-c) lenses on my 12MP D700 in DX mode, and even though it only gets me about 5.5 MP in the frame, the results are suprisingly good even when printed 8x10, and more than good enough for web presentation. A 24 or 36MP FF body would get you about 11 and 15MP on the crop target respectively.

It wouldn't make a lot of sense to buy a FF body and then go out and buy a bunch of DA lenses, but if you have existing DA lenses, DX mode makes them still very useful.

.

[Clavius]

The 'aps-c mode' idea is valuable for folks who have one or two apsc-only lenses in addition to FF-capable lenses and would simply like the option to shoot them all on a new FF body. Don't discount this option until you've had the opportunity to try it.

I have 6 DA and 1 FA lens... But I would still by FF in a heartbeat. Of those 6 DA's, 2 are capable to use on FF.

Moreover, I'm guessing the APS-c mode will be a in-camera software crop. Then there's bound to be a setting for the cropping amount, so the users can experiment themselves.

[jsherman999]

... there's bound to be a setting for the cropping amount, so the users can experiment themselves.

That would be very cool. My D700 does not have that, it only has 'DX' or 'FX' modes. Imagine a mode that enables one of the wheels allowing you do 'dial-down' the crop at something like the equivalent of 1MM focal-length at a time until the superimposed VF 'frame' is inside the vignetting - and then being able to save that setting for each lens so it just goes to that crop level when you mount the lens, kinda like how AF-adjust works.

That would be very fun to play with, as well