[eddie1960]

Ya, it's too bad that the A850/900 didn't really pan out as well as was hoped. I'd have loved to have an excuse to get some of those Zeiss lenses, as expensive as they are, but the system as a whole just didn't fit my needs.

the zeiss lens pricing is the big drawback for sony. they are amazing lenses but down a level from the zeiss the Sony lenses are meh. Pentax has a huge edge over Sony in having some excellent reasonable FF glass in production like the LTD trio. If the FF body is also very compact like he K5 it will appeal to a whole range of users

[24X36NOW]

Sure, you can argue that more resolution means less noise, and cropping is nice in a handful of cases, but really, most shots are much more limited by focus, motion blur, or lens sharpness than resolution at this point. Full frame doesn't fix that.

Actually, FF does "fix" lens sharpness, since APS-C basically demands that your lens resolve the same details at 42.25% of the size that they must resolve detail on a FF sensor. That's a huge disadvantage of the smaller format that (a) can't be overcome (since mass produced lenses will never live up to such a quality differential at a price point that APS-C would support) and (b) is going to be magnified by the release of newer, higher pixel count FF cameras.

Pumping out an also-ran FF camera would be worse than nothing, and I really think Sony's attempt was exactly what you get if you have FF for the sake of FF. Pentax shouldn't put one out unless they have something that will really stand out like the K-5 has.

Sony's issues have already been explained elsewhere. In terms of the K5 being "compelling," although the numbers don't seem easy to find, I'm, pretty sure every "flagship" Pentax dSLR since the K10D sold less copies than the K10D. What is going to be "compelling" enough to reverse that trend, if it's still another "also ran" APS-C? As the Pentax K-mount support shrinks and its user base shrinks, no APS-C camera has any hope of reversing this situation, because the biggest installed K-mount user base is manual focus, a group that is not going to be happy without FF cameras with FF viewfinders.

As to their performance with Hoya - I don't watch market share really, but it seems to me that Pentax did a fantastic job shaking up the market and generating press with the K-7 and K-5. It seems to me that they've got disproportionately large share of buzz for their size (and their nonexistent advertising budget!) and the K-5 is the most compelling camera that they've put out since... I don't know when. It's hard to complain about a strategy that produced class leading IQ.

Probably the most compelling since the K10D - and yet, they probably sold a lot more K10Ds than K5s, which underscores the problem.

The better high ISO performance is academic at this point. K-5 is in the same ballpark as the full frames.

Actually, it's not in the same ballpark, it's still behind FF cameras like the D3, introduced years earlier. You can talk about how "small" the gap is, but that gap is about to open up in that and other ways that APS-C simply won't be able to match with the release of cameras like the D4 and D800. Is the argument then going to become "but in another three generations maybe APS-C might be close again? Those are unlikely to be "compelling" arguments for staying with APS-C, for an increasing number of people.

More sensor area/lens area... sort of. Don't forget that APS-C has the advantage of sitting in the "sweet spot" - a lot of these full frame lenses are going to show their weaknesses more if we have to push it out to the corners, so I don't think that's a complete win.

The "sweet spot advantage" is more than overcome by the huge disadvantage of demanding that your lens be able to resolve the same details at less than half the size. "Corner sharpness" is a similar APS-C marketing campaign "talking point" that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Try reviewing a random sample of your photos and see how many are or could be "spoiled" by a lack of "corner sharpness." Most images don't include anything important in the corners (or at the "edges," either for that matter), and the "testing" that supposedly points out the "issue" of "corner sharpness" are pictures of resolution charts, i.e., flat-field performance testing. Since the real world is three-dimensional, and what is in the corners (or at the edges) of photos is not going to be in the same plane of focus as your subject, whatever is in the corners is not going to be razor sharp anyway, even with lenses with "corner to corner" sharpness as measured in tests.

The reality is that the smaller format provides less resolution (all else being equal) across the entire frame, since it demands much more from the lenses, which may mean less difference between the center and the corners, but also means less for the actual subject where it counts, in the middle of the frame. If you compare a D7000 (same sensor as the K5) with the D3 using the same lens on both on DxO Mark, you'll find that more often than not, the D3 resolves more lpmm than the D7000, despite the D7000 having 50% more pixels than the D3.

Going by DXOmark, the D3s offers a stop and a half of better low light performance. Other full frame cameras have a significantly smaller advantage. And, this is with worse dynamic range and color depth than the K-5. So, I wouldn't call them "way better". I think it is safe to say that the K-5 is in the same ballpark. Note also that there are full frame cameras that the K-5 beats... the point here is that it isn't as simple as it used to be. There used to be a huge image quality gap between full frame and everything else, and that gap has diminished.

FF cameras generations older offer better low light performance, and the next round of FF cameras are going to further expand FF image quality advantages in ways APS-C won't be able to match, even with multiple generations of development, because the practical limits are already being exceeded for APS-C. The 24 MP APS-C sensors look like complete crap at higher ISOs, and that's going to be what Pentax will probably have to go with for its next APS-C camera (since Sony is their source for sensors and that's where Sony is going). In other words, the next Pentax APS-C may not see an overall increase in image quality compared with the K5, which is hardly going to be "compelling," in particular with new FF cameras coming out that will push image quality to new levels.

There's also the question about when a sensor is "good enough". Most people don't need a computer with more than 2 cores and a few GB of RAM - for 90% of use cases (emailing and watching youtube) modern computers are far more than most people need. Sure, a 12 core monster with 16GB of RAM is objectively more powerful, but it is a complete waste for most people. The race is over for speed in a consumer computer, and there's an argument that cameras will approach the same kind of barrier, if they haven't already. At the limits of the k-5's low light performance (at least with a fast lens), you are likely to be struggling with focusing and even being able to see your subject well enough to compose a shot well. Sure, going to ISO 200,000 is better than ISO 50,000, but the situations where that is meaningful are pretty scarce.

We can always talk about "good enough," but there's a lot of different issues there. If we're talking viewfinders, APS-C will never be "good enough," irrespective of image quality differences or the lack thereof, especially when the majority of your "enthusiast" user base was established during the manual focus era. "Good enough" also doesn't mean that much when "better" is available, and the differences are big enough to be appreciated. Everybody likes new toys, whether they "need" them or not. With the introduction of the D800, you're now beginning to see APS-C only shooters talking about moving to FF, even at the $3,000 price point, because it will be that big of a deal image quality wise (in terms of resolution, in particular).

The question isn't "is full frame better?" The question ought to be: Is full frame enough better to move a lot of units and make more profit than an APS-C only strategy? Is it enough of a difference to motivate a lot of buyers? It is tough enough for a small player like Pentax to make a grab at a fairly large market (entry level DSLR). Don't expect a small market like full frame to magically be any different - in many ways it could be more difficult to do profitably.

FF is enough of a difference to motivate a lot of buyers, who have moved to Nikon or Canon because they didn't have a Pentax option. FF should actually be easier to do profitably, because there is more margin left in FF bodies than in APS-C, where there is much more competition. Since Pentax isn't selling huge volume, a higher margin per unit product like FF actually has potential to be more profitable, and it's not like it will cost an arm and a leg to develop, since the majority of the development is for things shared with their APS-C cameras anyway.

The DR advantage is only really there at base ISO, and if you can ever see any difference in output from that small color depth delta, you must be superhuman

Indeed, and that is despite the K5 sensor being years newer.

'Same ballpark', sure, but it depends on how you define the ballpark. Really, the Fuji X10 is in the same ballpark as the K-5 as well, then.

Yes, if you move the fences in, lots of players become "power hitters." The question is, when playing on the field with deeper fences, is your hitter still a power hitter, or just a "warning track fly ball" out? (Just carrying out the baseball analogy).

Also, the output is only part of the equation - how you get that output is another part. There's a pretty big difference in performance between the K-5 and D700 for example in AF lock speed and accuracy, especially with tracking and low-light shooting, there's a much better VF in the D700, and you enjoy the lens advantage in the wide-normal-mid telephoto focal lengths with regards to DOF control.

Yes, always a Pentax soft spot has been autofocus performance. I personally never cared much, since my K-mount glass was all manual focus, but in this day in age it's something they need to address I suppose. Yet, even if Pentax addresses autofocus performance, APS-C will never have a FF viewfinder.

That is the question - but also, what is the cost of doing nothing, or of doing half measures? Pentax may not be able to sell K-mount lenses in the market that will exist five years from now at sufficient volumes without an FF footing.

The cost thus far has been about 1/2 of Pentax's market share, plus loss of third-party lens support from three different lens makers. The cost of continuing to do so will be the loss of any chance of reversing that trend.

FF is a means to an end for most - they want really good performance, and if a large sensor helps produce that, that's where they will head. If it doesn't offer a considerable benefit, it isn't going to sell. If you can offer a really awesome APS-C, you can guarantee that you're going to appease some of those people that are crying for full frame, without all the risks involved.

Pentax's "really awesome" K5 didn't even motivate many people who had a K10D to upgrade, and it certainly didn't "appease" those who want FF, who are leaving Pentax in droves to get what they want elsewhere. The "risks" of not producing a FF have already shown themselves to be far more grave than the "risks" of doing so.

Are you forgetting Minolta? A lot of compatible legacy glass there.

Yes, as I indicated previously, autofocus only, and much of that being consumer-grade lenses. A much smaller installed base than Pentax had when you consider its manual focus user base. Many Minolta shooters stayed with their manual focus gear and later switched to Canon or Nikon instead of buying all new Minolta autofocus gear, so their "legacy glass" availability is not comparable with Pentax.

[maxfield_photo]

Damn I wish the Pentax execs would read this forum.

[jsherman999]

Damn I wish the Pentax execs would read this forum.

Ned B has mentioned that he reads this forum and dpreview, and has even emailed Lance B and discussed comments made by certain dpreview posters.

Hi, Ned!

(Of course it would be near-insanity for them to drop out of lurk mode and actually start posting here. And I highly doubt Ned has time to read every thread, just probably pops in once in a while.)

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 02-21-2012 at 11:36 AM.

[maxfield_photo]

Sanity is overrated.

[Eigengrau]

Sony's issues have already been explained elsewhere. In terms of the K5 being "compelling," although the numbers don't seem easy to find, I'm, pretty sure every "flagship" Pentax dSLR since the K10D sold less copies than the K10D. What is going to be "compelling" enough to reverse that trend, if it's still another "also ran" APS-C? As the Pentax K-mount support shrinks and its user base shrinks, no APS-C camera has any hope of reversing this situation, because the biggest installed K-mount user base is manual focus, a group that is not going to be happy without FF cameras with FF viewfinders.

Citations? Claiming that everything after the K10D sold worse and saying that the largest portion of current Pentax users are manual focusers are both things that require pretty heavy backup. Great claims require great proof and all that. Also, you've got a lot of people here that are willing to make a forum post or hit "like" when it comes to FF, but how many will lay down the cash when the time comes?

Actually, it's not in the same ballpark, it's still behind FF cameras like the D3, introduced years earlier. You can talk about how "small" the gap is, but that gap is about to open up in that and other ways that APS-C simply won't be able to match with the release of cameras like the D4 and D800.

The D800 offers only 25,600 ISO when boosted, which is matched by the K-5. Of course, we all expect the D800 to have less noise, but only a few years ago we had 6400 MAX iSO, and that was scarcely useable. The point here is that APS-C has made more dramatic improvements than FF did over the same time period. The gap is indeed smaller - I've never said it isn't there, but it is 100% true that it isn't nearly as big as it once was.

The reality is that the smaller format provides less resolution (all else being equal) across the entire frame, since it demands much more from the lenses, which may mean less difference between the center and the corners, but also means less for the actual subject where it counts, in the middle of the frame. If you compare a D7000 (same sensor as the K5) with the D3 using the same lens on both on DxO Mark, you'll find that more often than not, the D3 resolves more lpmm than the D7000, despite the D7000 having 50% more pixels than the D3.

I'd agree with you, all else being equal, but it isn't. FF glass is bigger, more expensive, and harder to make. A FF sensor doesn't count for anything if you don't have the glass to support it, and while the used market is substantial for Pentax, none of those used sales put dollars in Pentax' pocket. And as nice as the limiteds are, APS-C is a lot kinder to them than FF will be. Releasing a FF body without competitive lenses to sell with it wouldn't work (see Sony). Putting all the resources into manufacturing those lenses isn't going to be cheap.

The 24 MP APS-C sensors look like complete crap at higher ISOs, and that's going to be what Pentax will probably have to go with for its next APS-C camera (since Sony is their source for sensors and that's where Sony is going). In other words, the next Pentax APS-C may not see an overall increase in image quality compared with the K5, which is hardly going to be "compelling," in particular with new FF cameras coming out that will push image quality to new levels.

If Pentax has to go in that direction, I most likely won't be following, but Sony isn't the only sensor manufacturer out there. They've worked with Samsung before if I'm not mistaken, and maybe something good will turn up. That's more problematic for FF than APS-C, though - finding a quality FF sensor to put in a camera body is harder than an APS-C one, so that isn't convincing.

We can always talk about "good enough," but there's a lot of different issues there. If we're talking viewfinders, APS-C will never be "good enough," irrespective of image quality differences or the lack thereof, especially when the majority of your "enthusiast" user base was established during the manual focus era.

"Good enough" is subjective, and APS-C viewfinders are good enough for most - just look at the market sizes. Not everybody needs a V8, and not everybody needs a massive SLR to haul around. Where is the most growth likely to be? I've yet to see a convincing argument that big viewfinder full frames are the largest area for new camera sales. Don't make the mistake of assuming that the majority of the market has the same values that you do.

FF is enough of a difference to motivate a lot of buyers, who have moved to Nikon or Canon because they didn't have a Pentax option. FF should actually be easier to do profitably, because there is more margin left in FF bodies than in APS-C, where there is much more competition. Since Pentax isn't selling huge volume, a higher margin per unit product like FF actually has potential to be more profitable, and it's not like it will cost an arm and a leg to develop, since the majority of the development is for things shared with their APS-C cameras anyway.

True, but to make a comfortable profit in a high margin environment isn't easy to do - everybody would be otherwise. Pentax has less resources than the competition, so it would be easy for them to be undercut if they really started to rock the boat. Probably the most successful company in this regard is Apple, who offers design and appeal that somehow lets them operate on way larger margins than everybody else. You can try to do that just out of nowhere, but as a for instance, VW tried to move upmarket recently with their Phaeton, and it flopped horribly. If Pentax could do it, great, but that's a big, big if.

The cost thus far has been about 1/2 of Pentax's market share, plus loss of third-party lens support from three different lens makers. The cost of continuing to do so will be the loss of any chance of reversing that trend.

Prove it! You have no way of showing that losses are due to the lack of a full frame camera, and your doomsday claims are the same exact things that people have been saying for years. You've got no evidence to show that right now is any different.

Pentax's "really awesome" K5 didn't even motivate many people who had a K10D to upgrade, and it certainly didn't "appease" those who want FF, who are leaving Pentax in droves to get what they want elsewhere. The "risks" of not producing a FF have already shown themselves to be far more grave than the "risks" of doing so.

Again, baseless conjecture. I personally was really considering moving to a D700 until the K-5 came out. I wanted something that could do a really solid job in indoor light and during wedding receptions, and while the k20 and k-7 were lacking, the k-5 is everything I could ask for. I (like many people) don't care about whether my camera is the best, I care about whether it is enough to do what I need it to do. That is the case for the K-5 in basically all of my use cases.

My main point is this: This online forum, dpreview, and the FF fanatics that have been yelling about it for years, are a very vocal but very limited demographic. Many of these folks shoot on old manual glass, and even if a FF body came out they might not have the cash to buy one (not to mention lenses). You can tell me all you want about you and your friend and this other guy you know who will lay down preorder money for a FF, but talk is cheap and, more importantly, we aren't a very representative group here on the forum.

For Pentax to prosper, they need to find profitable market segments where they can put out class leading products and make lots of money. I've seen little actual data or supported argument explaining why FF is somewhere that Pentax could do well. There are no end of opinions about halo products and people going for Nikon or Canon because of a lack of high-end options, but there's no data I've ever seen to back that up. If a high-end halo product is all that a manufacturer needs to motivate buyers, then Sony should've done great.

The case for FF used to be really good IMO, but it seems to me that it is less solid now than it once was. Sony has had a failure in that segment, there's more competition there than there used to be, and APS-C has been improving a lot. The biggest area of growth right now seems to be on the other end of SLRs - mirrorless and other small SLRs.

[maxfield_photo]

Again, baseless conjecture. I personally was really considering moving to a D700 until the K-5 came out. I wanted something that could do a really solid job in indoor light and during wedding receptions, and while the k20 and k-7 were lacking, the k-5 is everything I could ask for. I (like many people) don't care about whether my camera is the best, I care about whether it is enough to do what I need it to do. That is the case for the K-5 in basically all of my use cases.

My main point is this: This online forum, dpreview, and the FF fanatics that have been yelling about it for years, are a very vocal but very limited demographic. Many of these folks shoot on old manual glass, and even if a FF body came out they might not have the cash to buy one (not to mention lenses). You can tell me all you want about you and your friend and this other guy you know who will lay down preorder money for a FF, but talk is cheap and, more importantly, we aren't a very representative group here on the forum.

For Pentax to prosper, they need to find profitable market segments where they can put out class leading products and make lots of money. I've seen little actual data or supported argument explaining why FF is somewhere that Pentax could do well. There are no end of opinions about halo products and people going for Nikon or Canon because of a lack of high-end options, but there's no data I've ever seen to back that up. If a high-end halo product is all that a manufacturer needs to motivate buyers, then Sony should've done great.

The case for FF used to be really good IMO, but it seems to me that it is less solid now than it once was. Sony has had a failure in that segment, there's more competition there than there used to be, and APS-C has been improving a lot. The biggest area of growth right now seems to be on the other end of SLRs - mirrorless and other small SLRs.

I am confused, you acknowledge us as the vocal minority, but you don't take into account the power to sway opinions that such a group possesses. When Johnny Q. Snapshot decides he wants to buy a camera, where does he go? Well in the old days he went to his local brick and mortar camera store and asked a salesperson, for better or worse (for worse, if you ask me) those days are gone. Now he goes to the internet a reads forums and camera review sites such as this one and DPreviews. And what do you suppose he reads on those sites? The opinion of the vocal minority. I've said it before, we are the promoters. Half the reason Canon and Nikon do so well is jackasses get on these forums and rave about how their D4 is the best camera ever, and everything else is crap, and you know what? It works!

You won't find marketing research on how many shooters Pentax has lost because of their refusal to develop a digital full frame, we can only speculate. It's almost as if they refuse to even acknowledge that there is a gaping hole in their line-up; it's the pink elephant in the room of which no one will speak. If you think the problem isn't real though, let me assure you that it is, and they're about to lose one more. You're right about one thing though, the case for a FF used to be better, and each passing day it becomes worse as more and more would-be pros are forced to look elsewhere for the tools they need to be competitive. Maybe it is already too late, that's what none of us know, but waiting any longer certainly isn't going to make it any easier, quite the contrary. We of the vocal minority are simply acknowledging the pink elephant, and if Pentax were wise they'd do something about it before there's no vocal minority left to promote them or buy their cameras.

[Eigengrau]

I am confused, you acknowledge us as the vocal minority, but you don't take into account the power to sway opinions that such a group possesses. When Johnny Q. Snapshot decides he wants to buy a camera, where does he go? Well in the old days he went to his local brick and mortar camera store and asked a salesperson, for better or worse (for worse, if you ask me) those days are gone. Now he goes to the internet a reads forums and camera review sites such as this one and DPreviews. And what do you suppose he reads on those sites? The opinion of the vocal minority. I've said it before, we are the promoters. Half the reason Canon and Nikon do so well is jackasses get on these forums and rave about how their D4 is the best camera ever, and everything else is crap, and you know what? It works!

You won't find marketing research on how many shooters Pentax has lost because of their refusal to develop a digital full frame, we can only speculate. It's almost as if they refuse to even acknowledge that there is a gaping hole in their line-up; it's the pink elephant in the room of which no one will speak. If you think the problem isn't real though, let me assure you that it is, and they're about to lose one more. You're right about one thing though, the case for a FF used to be better, and each passing day it becomes worse as more and more would-be pros are forced to look elsewhere for the tools they need to be competitive. Maybe it is already too late, that's what none of us know, but waiting any longer certainly isn't going to make it any easier, quite the contrary. We of the vocal minority are simply acknowledging the pink elephant, and if Pentax were wise they'd do something about it before there's no vocal minority left to promote them or buy their cameras.

I think you overestimate the power of us camera nerds. Sure, I've talked a few people into buying Pentax, and maybe some of the rest of us have, but that's small potatoes compared to the kinds of numbers that make or break a camera company. I think the best example I know of to demonstrate exactly why outspoken geeks aren't the best place for advice is the infamous Slashdot report on the first iPod... Apple releases iPod - Slashdot

Long story short - Slashdot is a tremendously significant nerd news website, and it was even moreso back in the day when this story was posted because there weren't as many alternatives around as there now are. Geeks in 2001 were going all sorts of crazy for MP3 players, and then Apple released the iPod. Slashdot summarized the opinion from the techy elite: "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." Little did they realize that this was the product that would mark Apple's major turnaround, and set the trend for design principles of the next decade.

It's easy to imagine that we're doing the same thing: we're wanting viewfinders and sensor size, when the the thing that will change everything around is design, appeal, and usability. Not that the K-01 is an industry changer like the iPod was, but I for one see lots of parallels: A product that spurns the sensibilities of the tech-savvy, but has mass appeal that doesn't show up on a spec sheet.

[maxfield_photo]

Perhaps, but you can't make your living listening to an iPod. [Professional] Cameras need to be functional first, and stylish last. That's where the K-01 loses points in my book, in the quest to by stylish the designers ignored the functionality requirement, and I don't mean Marc Newson. I doubt he had any input on whether or not the camera would include a viewfinder.

Frankly, I don't care if it has all the grace and styling of a baboon's ass as long at it takes full frame pictures, has an OVF, and uses the K-mount. I realize that the K-01 is not aimed at me, just as the Q is not. What Pentax needs to realize is that a full frame camera's target audience is not soccer moms and trendy hipsters, it is working pro and semi pro photographers to whom style only becomes a consideration once all technical demands are met. Canon and Nikon understand this (Sony just doesn't get photography) Pentax I think knows it too, but it's like they are looking for a cheap gimmick to get around it. It won't work.

[ElJamoquio]

I think you overestimate the power of us camera nerds. Sure, I've talked a few people into buying Pentax, and maybe some of the rest of us have,

So what you've said here is that pentax keeping you happy resulted in four total Pentax customers?

Personally if Pentax became the 'apple' of the photography world I'd probably jump ship. Not that it'd be bad for Pentax, but it'd be bad for me.

[Smolk]

Cameras need to be functional first, and stylish last.

But that is a false dichotomy. Good design is functional.

[Clavius]

But that is a false dichotomy. Good design is functional.

True, good design is functional, but doesn't have to be stylish.

I already find the green lensring on Pentax to much decoration.

[drougge]

FF glass is bigger, more expensive, and harder to make.

Not really. People just insist in comparing the wrong lenses. The FF equivalent of the DA16-50/2.8 would be DFA24-75/4. Not f/2.8, f/4. If you make them the same speed the FF gets more light (total on the whole sensor) and thinner DOF. That's not equivalent.

Conversely, the equivalent of (common, fairly small and cheap) 28-75/2.8 lenses for FF on APC-C would be 18-50/2. Those are expensive enough that noone bothers to even make them.

(Of course it also follows that the fair comparison of ISO performance would be ISO 100 on APS-C vs ISO 200 on FF, but I never wanted FF for better ISO performance, so that's ok.)

[falconeye]

FF glass is bigger, more expensive, and harder to make.

-> Falk Lumo: Camera equivalence

(I've read this statement so many times that I decided to make my own article I can refer to whenever this false information comes up)

[the swede]

..... USM, IS, VR and so on makes lenses bigger. Fullframe or not....

A screw driven lens without any stabilisation can be made pretty small, even if Canikon made one. Fullframe or not....