[philbaum]

My understanding is that the majority of buyers just want a camera and buy a max of one extra lens, if any, over the kit lens. They aren't buying into a system in that sense and almost all the stuff on here about systems, lenses, format wars, DR, sensor performance et al really isn't of any interest to them. The systems for the "serious photographer" with a deep pocketbook may be the most profitable part but it is the sheer volume of the rest, the "just a camera" buyers, which keeps the whole show on the road.

Again, I suspect folks on here wildly overestimate the numbers of "serious photographers" and big spenders compared to the overall market.

The objections which folks on here have against MILCs don't really apply to the majority of those who buy them. They work just fine and dandy for their intended market and increasingly fine for almost any market as MILCs mature and become more sophisticated. There's a bit of snobbery about MILCs from among The Serious....

I'll chuck in the rumour that Sony will have an FF NEX with lenses within 18 months. I just don't see how the Pentax impasse can continue with the landscape changing like this. We'd all like to them to do better than well but few on here seem to think that can happen with just a few APS-C DSLRs to carry the load. Rum, very rum.

That does look serious about the FF Nex, i wasn't sure Sony could technically do it, considering the corner problems they had with the Nex7. A friend of mine that i shoot with bought the Nikon D600. I thought about doing the same, but was happy with my existing K5 performance, so bought a Nex 5n instead It was a good decision on my part because the Nex has opened up my eyes regarding camera equipment:

a. the short registraion distance of the e-mount enables adapters to be made that allows many different mfr lenses to be hung. In my situation, a $20 adapter allowed me to use a Pentax M 100mm f2.8 prime which has worked out well. This is a brilliant situation for Sony, a camera body that can use lenses from any other company, just about; and plenty of 3rd party mfr dying to build adapters for them. Can't say that about the K01 in its present incarnation.

b. I used to think of focus peaking as just another manual lens technique. But in some ways, its an advancement over AF systems, in that it will show one the DOF over a proposed image. Also, when i see the flickr of those yellow or red contrast areas in focus peaking, i know whether the focus area is behind or in front of the subject.. As one manually adjusts focus, you can see real time, what's happening to your setup - wonderful.

c. So what i'm driving at, is that instead of letting camera makers and gushing camera reviewers decide what kind of camera i should buy, there seem to be a lot of users out there that are buying what they need. I would like to think that the camera buying public is getting more sophisticated in their choices.

Then on the MILC market: Currently it simply is stagnant. It is not eating away into DSLR territory in a big way. That was the case in the past. Now: stagnant. Look at the official numbers. It is a significant market now but it's not really the big threat.

Same on the tiny FF market "eating away" at APSC. Yes it does, but incredibly slow. 5% of sales now and Nikon targeting 8,x % already forces them to throw out their stuff with huge drops in prices, because the demand is simply not there. No other camera failed it's starting price so massively like the D600 (3 months -25%). Trying to gain market share at all cost.
.

I've always thought that Nikon's strategy about focusing so much effort into new FF models, not only has potential benefits, but potential risks as well. What if the majority of the camera buying population looks at the FF models, and yawns??? Nikon is left with a lot of product on shelves and older aps(c) models that haven't been updated recently. I'm not saying that there aren't serious photographers out there that love their FF cameras. I am saying that not everyone out there will benefit from a FF camera. As a recent two system owner (Sony Nex and Pentax K5), I find myself less concerned about what any manufacturer does, since i'm no longer emotionally committed to any one model line. Its what tool will benefit my photography, that i most care about. In the end, i only have control over where i spend my money and how i use a camera, and no control over what Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Sony pick to manufacture and market.

---

Last edited by philbaum; 12-22-2012 at 11:02 AM.

[Rondec]

If we're talking about primes, I think it's the other way around: the limiteds are small because they are "slow." Many of the m43 primes are pretty fast: 12/2, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/1.8, 75/1.8. The fastest DA limited is 2.4. Granted, the differences in size between limiteds and M series primes on the one side and m43 primes is not really significant. The main advantage is with zooms. You can as easily carry three zooms covering FF equivalent range 18 through 300mm with one zoom on the camera in two zooms in the pocket. If you're traveling on foot, plane, train, subway that can be very convenient. It's no coincidence that the compact MILCs are doing well in Asia, where a lot of people live in crowded cities. The MILCs are urban cameras. I live in the western United States a scenic rural area. Hardly anyone around here owns an MILC. It's all DSLRs, FF for the few who can afford it, APS-C for the rest of us. Size is not a big problem. You just throw your gear in your car and drive to your destination.



But this assumes that the lower-end stuff has a 15% margin. If that were true, we would expect the camera divisions of Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus to turn a profit. They're not. Olympus probably made money on the E-M5, their most expensive m43 camera. Fuji made money on the pricey X-Pro. The competition is just too intense among the entry level stuff. It's driving margins to close to zero. And when companies have large overstock that has to be reduced to firesale prices, they lose money. The products that make money are those that have significant uniqueness which allows for higher margins. That's why Pentax talks about making a unique FF camera, something different from what Canon and Nikon are making. That's the only sort of FF that Pentax can hope to turn a profit on.

The rub is that not all unique products will make money. 4/3rds DSLRs were unique, but they didn't make it. A compact FF MILC would be unique, but Sony claims there isn't a market for such a product, and it's not clear that such a system makes sense, given that most photographers prefer zooms and FF zooms are too big to fit in a compact system.

You are not talking about equivalent lenses. It just isn't that hard to have a small 24mm f4 lens on full frame. The fact that the FA 31 is quite small and faster than f2 is a testament to that fact, since it is a full frame lens. I hate to go down the equivalence road too far, but that is why people aren't satisfied with APS-C. Much less four thirds.

[Ash]

Indeed most consumers are more interested in zooms, which goes well with smaller formats, both for cost minimisation (and as a result more popularity) and keeping the gear smaller and more lightweight. APS-C is a happy medium between IQ and size, and is both readily available and reasonably priced for the regular consumer. The more a photographer gets into the vocation/career, the more they are stretching their gear's capability, and in the case of Pentax, the flagship APS-C may be perceived as limiting their 'need' for even more DoF control and/or resolution. Most photographers are not going to make the jump from K-5 to 645D, so a FF camera is then desired.

Pentax have a good record of making primes that fit their niche of small, lightweight yet durable and great IQ. This segment is more geared towards the enthusiast who won't mind slightly more weight and size added onto their camera bag as opposed to the casual photographer who wants versatility along with a smaller size and lighter weight. I'd say there's room in the market for both market groups, and hence APS-C and FF lines should run concurrently, with entry level APS-Cs (including mirror less) like the K-r or K-01, a more advanced APS-C for enthusiasts like the K-5 II and a FF model for the prosumer and enthusiast to further advance themselves on.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Again, I suspect folks on here wildly overestimate the numbers of "serious photographers" and big spenders compared to the overall market.

Folks here still cannot understand how Canon survived abandoning their FD mount. They see Pentax sticking to their K-mount as a positive and rejoice in the 25 million K-mount lenses that can be used with the K-01, while shaking their heads disapprovingly at the demise of FD and ignoring that Canon is a successful company that has produced more than 70 million lenses since they introduced their EF mount (all of these being modern autofocus lenses). And watch Canon: when the time comes, they'll make the smoothest transition from DSRLs to MILCs.

[pinholecam]

You are not talking about equivalent lenses. It just isn't that hard to have a small 24mm f4 lens on full frame. The fact that the FA 31 is quite small and faster than f2 is a testament to that fact, since it is a full frame lens. I hate to go down the equivalence road too far, but that is why people aren't satisfied with APS-C. Much less four thirds.

Its only relevant if you talk about equivalent FOV and the apparent DOF it will give.
Otherwise, most of the m4/3 primes are fast (f2 or lower) in terms of light gathering.
Very center sharp too. Much more so that most APS-C/FF lenses.
But then they are often not optically corrected for distortions (firmware corrected) and thus some of the wider lenses have poorer edge sharpness.

Its a format thats very good for those who want lighter and don't care too much about absolute PP ability and some of the DOF/distortion/edge sharpness trade-offs.
They don't know that Pentax has been offering a smaller/lighter DSLR system all this while.
Together with very low prices at the end of each model's lifecycle (ie. 9mth-1yr), this form of camera has picked up sales strongly for the layman.

The other sort of convert that I see are those who have got tired lugged their big Canikon (5DII+24-75/2.8+70-200/2.8 IS) (really big heavy stuff) just for family trips and such.
There was a previous comment of MILCs being 'urban' cameras too, which I agree.
Here in SE Asia, many don't drive and the weather is humid-hot.
No chucking the gear in the car to drive to the next spot.
I see MILCs around a lot (but Canikon presence is v. strong too)

[Kunzite]

Folks here still cannot understand how Canon survived abandoning their FD mount. They see Pentax sticking to their K-mount as a positive and rejoice in the 25 million K-mount lenses that can be used with the K-01, while shaking their heads disapprovingly at the demise of FD and ignoring that Canon is a successful company that has produced more than 70 million lenses since they introduced their EF mount (all of these being modern autofocus lenses). And watch Canon: when the time comes, they'll make the smoothest transition from DSRLs to MILCs.

I understand very well why Canon made the EF mount, and how they were able not only to survive, but also succeed. That happened 25 years ago, in a completely different context; and Canon actually didn't had a choice. They made a huge effort, it wasn't the mount change in itself but a very costly and lengthly battle who put them where they are.
It is a mistake to believe:
- that Pentax changing the mount would necessarily work out as well as Canon's FD to EF transition
- that Pentax Ricoh have the needed resources to pull that out, in today's context
- that there isn't a more sensible alternative other than changing the mount
- that the K-mount itself is a limiting factor (it's no more than Nikon's F-mount, and I don't see Nikonians complaining)
- that being in the less profitable MILC market would be preferable being in the DSLR market

Transition from a market 5 times larger (as value), a market growing strongly and with potential for even further growth? I'm happy to say we won't see that very soon.

[Ash]

There's no problem with the K-mount, nor with MILC technology. The future of Pentax is in making gear enthusiasts will buy and use. That seems to be a mix of both dSLR and MILC platforms, and the balance is shifting towards MILC, but the dSLR should still have a comfortable spot in future developments.

[bigrex]

I wonder what a full frame mirrorless K-3 would look like? Maybe kind of like whatever Sony comes out with in their RX-1 rumor, but they are purportedly charging 3 grand for it, would Pentax do the same? Sony also only has a stupid 35mm fixed lens on it for that price point. Pentax could do better than that, could they not?

[Kunzite]

There's no problem with the K-mount, nor with MILC technology. The future of Pentax is in making gear enthusiasts will buy and use. That seems to be a mix of both dSLR and MILC platforms, and the balance is shifting towards MILC, but the dSLR should still have a comfortable spot in future developments.

I agree; I have no issue with the presence of MILCs on the market - choice is good, even if it's not what I'd chose. We will see about the balance shifting, it really happened only in Japan but otherwise, there is a long way to go. I'd guess is that, if things continue as they are, an equilibrium will be reached; because MILC makers are buying market share with cheap prices, and this can't get them much farther.
I just don't think and definitely don't want for Pentax to make any move that would hurt their K-mount.

bigrex, I'm afraid Pentax cannot price their products much lower than the competition. About the RX-1, maybe it's price has something to do with it being a niche product?

[bigrex]

I agree; I have no issue with the presence of MILCs on the market - choice is good, even if it's not what I'd chose. We will see about the balance shifting, it really happened only in Japan but otherwise, there is a long way to go. I'd guess is that, if things continue as they are, an equilibrium will be reached; because MILC makers are buying market share with cheap prices, and this can't get them much farther.
I just don't think and definitely don't want for Pentax to make any move that would hurt their K-mount.

bigrex, I'm afraid Pentax cannot price their products much lower than the competition. About the RX-1, maybe it's price has something to do with it being a niche product?

Well, I was thinking that they could do without the silly 35mm fixed lens. Unless none of the current lenses would work with a full frame mirrorless offering, that could maybe be a problem?

[Fogel70]

I'm afraid Pentax cannot price their products much lower than the competition. About the RX-1, maybe it's price has something to do with it being a niche product?

RX1 is a niche product, but a FF DSLR from Pentax will probably cover an even smaller niche.

I would not be surprised if Sony sells more RX1 than A99.

[Kunzite]

I don't have enough data even to attempt guessing. The A99 is more mass market, but faces a much tougher competition, who knows...
Pentax would specify the initial monthly production volume for every new launched product (in Japanese only), based on that we can extrapolate. I'm not sure if Sony does the same, though.

[ElJamoquio]

RX1 is a niche product, but a FF DSLR from Pentax will probably cover an even smaller niche.

I would not be surprised if Sony sells more RX1 than A99.

If Pentax wants to be a non-niche player (and of course they've stated they want to grow the brand) then they need a full lineup of cameras.

[mecrox]

I wonder what a full frame mirrorless K-3 would look like? Maybe kind of like whatever Sony comes out with in their RX-1 rumor, but they are purportedly charging 3 grand for it, would Pentax do the same? Sony also only has a stupid 35mm fixed lens on it for that price point. Pentax could do better than that, could they not?

Back in the day there were some excellent fixed lens cams for film and there are now for digital. For the intended market, Sony have likely made a good choice. If you can't take great pics withe the rx1 there really must be a problem

[Fogel70]

If Pentax wants to be a non-niche player (and of course they've stated they want to grow the brand) then they need a full lineup of cameras.

A FF DSLR will be nice, but it will not grow the Pentax brand much, as not many other than already existing Pentax users will be interested in it.

There are many other types of cameras/products that will be more important for growing the brand.