[RioRico]

If you count compacts, yes; but for real cameras, I doubt Samsung is even close (do they even have a real camera? ).

I don't know -- do they?

[Kunzite]

It doesn't seems so - only compacts and NX MILCs

[RioRico]

It doesn't seems so - only compacts and NX MILCs

NX is APS-C so if Pentax K-01 and Sony NEX are real cameras, they have company. Also, I recall that Samsung recently made noises about expanding in non-compact formats. But maybe they'll have to buy the Sony camera division to get there.

[RonHendriks1966]

NX is APS-C so if Pentax K-01 and Sony NEX are real cameras, they have company. Also, I recall that Samsung recently made noises about expanding in non-compact formats. But maybe they'll have to buy the Sony camera division to get there.

I think that Samsung is a serious competitor for the coming decade. They made NX series for aps-c, as is with fujifilm that choose for aps-c for their X-Pro 1.

[Fontan]

I think that Samsung is a serious competitor for the coming decade. They made NX series for aps-c, as is with fujifilm that choose for aps-c for their X-Pro 1.

Call me crazy, but they have enough know-how and the resources to do medium format digital.

[RonHendriks1966]

Call me crazy, but they have enough know-how and the resources to do medium format digital.

No doubt about that. No idea why they would do that or why not? Maybe the market is just to small to make it interesting. Medium Format market is maybe 10.000 units in total/year for all brands and they have no lenses for the system at the time.

[Class A]

Just because you decisively lost an argument in another thread does not mean you should put words into other people's mouths with silly hyperbole like "Sony is Nikon's slave". Get a grip.

The "thread in which I allegedly "decisively lost an argument" has you claiming that

1. Ricoh was behind Pentax USA's UPP, and
2. that Ned is not a liar when he states on his blog that Ricoh had no involvement with Pentax USA's UPP.

You also put words into my mouth (stating that I made a "desperate attempt to make "Ned" a liar.") while nothing could be further from the truth.

I never said that Sony "must" play by Nikon's rules.

You didn't use these exact words, but surely in many posts you tried to paint the picture of a dependent Sony that must not upset the powerful Nikon.

Here are a few examples of what you have written:

"I suspect that the deal between Nikon (design) and Sony (manufacture) excludes FF sensors going to another company."

"With that much volume and interdependence, and the fact that Nikon FF in particular have redefined the market segment, the common structure for such design and manufacture involves a lot of investment protection, including licensing prerogatives and exclusivity of supply. but I suspect that Sony relies on Nikon imaging feedback to calibrate its product."

"Sony will not upset that apple cart, especially when Sony is financially in the red, by turning FF sensor production into a commodity product generically available to all Pentax offering FF could only budge the market by a couple of % at most, whereas Sony upsetting Nikon could lose them 90% of that revenue."

"As I have pointed ou many times on this forum, all indications are that Nikon, who buy 100% of Sony's FF sensors over the last year, have a "special" deal with Sony. It certainly appears that way. I doubt Pentax can simply knock on Sony's door and buy FF sensors. Industrial supply with co-developed tech doesn't work to that simple sales model."(The "co-developed tech" is your, apparently Thom Hogan fed assumption, no evidence of it being true exists, to the best of my knowledge.)

"There is no way Sony is going to upset its largest customer by selling the same tech to Pentax to undercut Nikon and reduce overall margins. If anyone will choose to compete with Nikon it will be Sony itself. Sony has been in the red for 5 years on balance now. They will not jeopardize margins nor revenue streams. "

"It appears that Sony has already made their deal with Nikon, which largely came at the expense of Sony's FF efforts, leaving probably no room for another party like Pentax."

If, after all this, you now want to claim that you always have been pointing to a sensor price issue only and that exclusivity deals have never been an issue, well, good luck.

Obviously any longer-lasting exclusivity deal (a notion, I always rejected) would imply that Nikon is the mightier partner in the relationship with Sony. Why else would Sony enter exclusivity deals? Many have argued with you about your assumption that Nikon can dictate deals. I, for example, argued that Nikon really has no choice but buying Sony sensors (alternatives, anyone?) and hence Sony is in a better position to dictate deals than Nikon is. I have never excluded the possibility of deals that give Nikon a head start compared to other camera manufacturers in return for certain sales guarantees, but always opposed your notion of Nikon being able to make Sony exclude other sensor buyers for more than a few months.

I don't see how you can now say "I never said that Sony "must" play by Nikon's rules. ", except if you mean, "I've never used these exact words.".

---

Last edited by Class A; 06-18-2012 at 03:05 AM.

[monochrome]

es, would be nice if Pentax had a full line: Q-APS-FF-MF :but even without FF, this smokes all other makers' offerings.

Glad to see you post that.

[monochrome]

always opposed your notion of Nikon being able to make Sony exclude other sensor buyers for more than a few months.

Wouldn't prior exclusivity deals border on restraint of trade?

[andre-mz5]

Call me crazy, but they have enough know-how and the resources to do medium format digital.

I think medium format is quite another ballgame as 35mm, so I doubt if Samsung would have the know-how to develop a body PLUS lens line for medium format. They sure have plenty of resources, but I don't think they could pull it off.

[gazonk]

I think medium format is quite another ballgame as 35mm

I think there is room for "disruptive products" that will invalidate this assumption. Remember that the D800 is very close to the 645D in pixel count. And the 645D sensor is only 68% larger in area. The traditional modes of use of MF equipment may make people think in boxes that don't need to exist anymore.

IMHO a new smaller, lighter and lower-priced 645D model could easily become such a disruptive product.

[Class A]

Wouldn't prior exclusivity deals border on restraint of trade?

I guess there a ways to make it look legal, e.g., by pretending that Nikon provided vital input to the sensor design and hence having a need to protect IP.

I have my doubts w.r.t. to Nikon's input to sensor development. The key ideas that make the recent sensors so great are Sony's (e.g., column-parallel A/D conversion) and no one ever presented me a Nikon sensor patent, but that doesn't stop Thom Hogan and others to claim that Nikon has an oh-so vital design role in its relationship with Sony.

[Bare]

Obviously any longer-lasting exclusivity deal (a notion, I always rejected) would imply that Nikon is the mightier partner in the relationship with Sony.

Nikon, Pentax and Sony Imaging are nothing more than customers to Sony Semiconductor and cause Nikon is the bigest for big size sensors(APS-C & FF) one Nikon most probably has the lowest price and some exclusive deals as for 36MP FF sensor.

I, for example, argued that Nikon really has no choice but buying Sony sensors (alternatives, anyone?)

Thats the bingo! Nikon has some intelectual properties on sensor design such as D3/D700, D3100, D3s and D4 sensors. Maybe Nikon threatened Sony Semiconductor to leave them as customer and continue only with Nikon designs if they do not lower sensor price.

Also there is Aptina which designed sensor for Nikon 1 and is working on APS-C and FF designs and that's another option for Nikon besides Sony.

[Aristophanes]

The "thread in which I allegedly "decisively lost an argument" has you claiming that

1. Ricoh was behind Pentax USA's UPP, and
2. that Ned is not a liar when he states on his blog that Ricoh had no involvement with Pentax USA's UPP.

You also put words into my mouth (stating that I made a "desperate attempt to make "Ned" a liar.") while nothing could be further from the truth.


You didn't use these exact words, but surely in many posts you tried to paint the picture of a dependent Sony that must not upset the powerful Nikon.

Here are a few examples of what you have written:

"I suspect that the deal between Nikon (design) and Sony (manufacture) excludes FF sensors going to another company."

"With that much volume and interdependence, and the fact that Nikon FF in particular have redefined the market segment, the common structure for such design and manufacture involves a lot of investment protection, including licensing prerogatives and exclusivity of supply. but I suspect that Sony relies on Nikon imaging feedback to calibrate its product."

"Sony will not upset that apple cart, especially when Sony is financially in the red, by turning FF sensor production into a commodity product generically available to all Pentax offering FF could only budge the market by a couple of % at most, whereas Sony upsetting Nikon could lose them 90% of that revenue."

"As I have pointed ou many times on this forum, all indications are that Nikon, who buy 100% of Sony's FF sensors over the last year, have a "special" deal with Sony. It certainly appears that way. I doubt Pentax can simply knock on Sony's door and buy FF sensors. Industrial supply with co-developed tech doesn't work to that simple sales model."(The "co-developed tech" is your, apparently Thom Hogan fed assumption, no evidence of it being true exists, to the best of my knowledge.)

"There is no way Sony is going to upset its largest customer by selling the same tech to Pentax to undercut Nikon and reduce overall margins. If anyone will choose to compete with Nikon it will be Sony itself. Sony has been in the red for 5 years on balance now. They will not jeopardize margins nor revenue streams. "

"It appears that Sony has already made their deal with Nikon, which largely came at the expense of Sony's FF efforts, leaving probably no room for another party like Pentax."

If, after all this, you now want to claim that you always have been pointing to a sensor price issue only and that exclusivity deals have never been an issue, well, good luck.

Obviously any longer-lasting exclusivity deal (a notion, I always rejected) would imply that Nikon is the mightier partner in the relationship with Sony. Why else would Sony enter exclusivity deals? Many have argued with you about your assumption that Nikon can dictate deals. I, for example, argued that Nikon really has no choice but buying Sony sensors (alternatives, anyone?) and hence Sony is in a better position to dictate deals than Nikon is. I have never excluded the possibility of deals that give Nikon a head start compared to other camera manufacturers in return for certain sales guarantees, but always opposed your notion of Nikon being able to make Sony exclude other sensor buyers for more than a few months.

I don't see how you can now say "I never said that Sony "must" play by Nikon's rules. ", except if you mean, "I've never used these exact words.".

All you did was prove I have been consistent.

Thanks.

The current PENTAX rumour is about such exclusivity with Pentax MAYBE getting in after the big boys play the market.

Everything stated so far in all rumour camps is that Sony and Nikon have a sweetheart deal, something that is not at all unusual in manufacturing. Apple has routinely locked up the entire LCD and glass supply from some core manufacturers leaving everyone else a generation behind. This is so common in the electronics industry it is almost the norm rather than the exception.

Again, another argument you decisively lost. Thank-you again for proving my points.

Why is it you are always trying to make someone out to be a liar? That's 2 threads now. Not playing nice in the sandbox. Tsk. Tsk.

[ManuH]

The biggest issue is lenses. Not FF camera bodies.

It's true for any new system. Look at Nex, or even 645D. Not much native lenses there either. And actually Pentax would have more FF lenses at launch than any of the new mirrorless had for their system at launch. So I don't see the lens issue being a big deal.

The biggest issue for a Pentax FF is the sensor. Find one that is available, well performing and not too expensive. My hope would be the 36MP used in the D800. It's clearly the best sensor on the planet at this moment.