[Clavius]

Not to eat into the sales of their highly profitable 24x36 DSLR lines.

All the more reason for Pentax to eat from their competitors highly profitable 24x36 DSLR line as their own doesn't exist yet.

If Pentax comes with a FF DSLR, they're going head to head with 2 companies that are each larger then they are. Companies that already have a very strong foothold in the FF DSLR market. Trying to match them is "admireable".

Beating them by fishing in a different market segment, a segment where both those giants don't have any products yet would be much less risky.

Of course an FF Pentax MILC would force a reaction from those other companies. It will eat at CaNiSon's FF DSLR market. It will certainly eat at Leica's market. Maybe Pentax is just scared of that reaction?

[Mistral75]

(...)

Of course an FF Pentax MILC would force a reaction from those other companies. It will eat at CaNiSon's FF DSLR market. It will certainly eat at Leica's market. Maybe Pentax is just scared of that reaction?

Maybe the niche (mirrorless) within the niche (24x36 sensor) is too small for a second-tier manufacturer to invest in?

15 million (number of cameras with interchangeable lens shipped in 2011)
x 1.25 (25% forecast growth in 2012 compared to 2011)
x 5% to 10% (guesstimated share of 24x36 DSLRs among DSLRs)
x 18% (share of non-reflex cameras among interchangeable lens cameras, January to August 2012)
x 4% (Pentax estimated share of DSLR market)

= forecast of 6,750 to 13,500 Pentax mirrorless cameras with 24x36 sensor per year.

i.e. rather less than the actual number of 645D units shipped every year, together with a (much) lower price and lower unit margins. What interest?

[mecrox]

I believe that in the the other rumor thread a Pentax official already confirmed that "APSC is the maximum format for MILC".

But still, wouldn't that lower value of the MILCs make it possible to place a very highly featured high quality and very usefull FF camera on the market below the price of the competitors. Enabling that fast growth. And probably sustainable too, as digital has the future. DSLRs are only partly digital, all the moving parts, bouncing mirrors are still from the analog age.

'I believe that in the the other rumor thread a Pentax official already confirmed that "APSC is the maximum format for MILC"' - Oh dear, if they really think that then head for an exit right now. Only a few years ago the same folks were saying "APSC is the maximum format for DSLR" and now look at what's happened. When camera evolution is driven by an industry as fast-moving and unpredictable as IT, the only thing you can know for sure is that all your predictions will turn out to be mistaken. Start trying to draw lines like this and you are asking for a whole lot of pain later as you are caught with a product portfolio that's out of tune with the market, imho.

[Clavius]

Maybe the niche (mirrorless) within the niche (24x36 sensor) is too small for a second-tier manufacturer to invest in?

Very good point... But why is FF a niche anyway?

A. FF means expensive.
B. FF means BIG equipment.
C. FF is/was mostly unavailable.

Going FF MILC however, would mean a less expensive, smaller machine that is therefore available to much more people. I think going mirrorless will help un-niching the FF format.

Sorry, just dreaming out loud.

[illdefined]

I'm making no such guesses. I only said that, unless otherwise proved, it's safe to assume that right now the growing trend was continued. That's how trends works

and....yeah you're guessing too. people trend forecast all the time. if you wait for "proof" you're just documenting history, not prognosticating the future.

You didn't read what I wrote? I'll write it again: "driving the market" doesn't necessarily means MILCs, and doesn't guarantee success.

now it certainly wouldn't, because MILCs have already been established. That's why the Q and the K-01 didn't work, they fared poorly against the now established paradigm. I did read what you wrote, did you read what i wrote?I was using Olympus as a historical example of driving the market by co-creating the MILC, and you went on about them failing at DSLRs...

Talking is cheap; but show me your new data - if you can.

I don't have to prove anything to you, time will do that for me. do note that looking backwards is a good way to hit something.

Yes, Olympus is doing great losing money on their Imaging Systems division; Pentax should use the same tactic.

Nothing at all do with their 90s scandal and falling stock price..(vs. actual camera sales). Pentax and its dizzying dance among owners is certainly a better model of profit-making

[Winder]

I think an EVIL FF would be perfect, but I doubt Pentax has the technology to pull it off right now. The CDAF technology that Pentax has is brutally bad compared to Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, or Sony.

Pentax is more of a market follower than leader or innovator. They are still playing catch-up on flash and PDAF technology. I hope Pentax comes out with a FF EVIL and a new modern mount, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. In about 5 years, after the market is fully saturated, Pentax will jump in.

[ElJamoquio]

Very good point... But why is FF a niche anyway?

A. FF means expensive.
B. FF means BIG equipment.
C. FF is/was mostly unavailable.

A. Depends. Cheap APS-C is less expensive than FF. At a certain IQ requirement it's cheaper to go FF.
B. Depends. Most of the FF lenses that give equivalent SNR and DOF are smaller than APS-C lenses. The 'problem' is that slow lenses for FF don't really exist.
C. True; inexpensive FF has not yet existed.

[mecrox]

Maybe the niche (mirrorless) within the niche (24x36 sensor) is too small for a second-tier manufacturer to invest in?

15 million (number of cameras with interchangeable lens shipped in 2011)
x 1.25 (25% forecast growth in 2012 compared to 2011)
x 5% to 10% (guesstimated share of 24x36 DSLRs among DSLRs)
x 18% (share of non-reflex cameras among interchangeable lens cameras, January to August 2012)
x 4% (Pentax estimated share of DSLR market)

= forecast of 6,750 to 13,500 Pentax mirrorless cameras with 24x36 sensor per year.

i.e. rather less than the actual number of 645D units shipped every year, together with a (much) lower price and lower unit margins. What interest?

I'd have thought this is just how markets driven by IT do not work. They progress by sudden leaps and bounds, dives and drops, not progressively and predictably as markets for mature products do. Nokia went from hero to zero in a finger click. Tablets went from zero to hero in almost half a click. That's profits and stock valuations on balance sheets and bourses we're looking at here, not sales or branding. The same thing could easily happen with a format of camera. All it takes is a change in technology and a change in perception among consumers - and whammo. I'd guess all you can do is rule nothing in or out and try to stay nimble enough to move quickly if you have to. That's why all the remarks in recent interviews with Pentax spokesmen about studying the market in our own sweet time and so forth are a little disturbing. There is no absolute time. There is only the time it takes to be ahead of your competitors or behind them.

[Mistral75]

Very good point... But why is FF a niche anyway?

A. FF means expensive.
B. FF means BIG equipment.
C. FF is/was mostly unavailable.

Going FF MILC however, would mean a less expensive, smaller machine that is therefore available to much more people. I think going mirrorless will help un-niching the FF format.

Sorry, just dreaming out loud.

A. I agree but mirrorless doesn't mean less expensive. Think 'Sony NEXs vs. comparable Alphas' or 'Canon EOS-M vs. EOS 650D'. Or even Sony RX-1 for what is worth.
B. Nikon D700 isn't much bigger than D300 and D600 than D7000. Lenses for mirrorless cameras won't be that smaller than those for DSLRs (think 'NEX lenses' for instance).
C. I respectfully disagree. Canon + Nikon represent more than 3/4 of the DSLR market and they have proposed 24x36 cameras for years.

[WerTicus]

If they go full-full-frame next year -any guesses as to if they would tend to go with a 24mp /Sony -type sensor or not?

Ron B.

Actually they will probably go for the best sensor available mid cycle vs canikon which would put them in front performance wise for 1.5yrs ;-)

[Mistral75]

(...)

Nothing at all do with their 90s scandal and falling stock price..(vs. actual camera sales). (...)

Olympus Imaging Systems division loosed money even before the company was hit by the scandal. Cf. their annual reports.

[illdefined]

Olympus Imaging Systems division loosed money even before the company was hit by the scandal. Cf. their annual reports.

I believe (yes, guessing) with Sony's new partnership, and more vitally their new sensors, their sales will increase considerably in the next coming year. starting with this year's OM-D.

[Rondec]

I think an EVIL FF would be perfect, but I doubt Pentax has the technology to pull it off right now. The CDAF technology that Pentax has is brutally bad compared to Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, or Sony.

Pentax is more of a market follower than leader or innovator. They are still playing catch-up on flash and PDAF technology. I hope Pentax comes out with a FF EVIL and a new modern mount, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. In about 5 years, after the market is fully saturated, Pentax will jump in.

It is getting better, but the problem with mirrorless (except for Nikon's 1 cameras) is that it has lousy continuous auto focus. Sticking PDAF on the sensor does make a big difference in that regard and maybe that will be the answer, but till that is figured out, I think full frame and mirrorless are not going to go well together.

[Clavius]

I think an EVIL FF would be perfect, but I doubt Pentax has the technology to pull it off right now. The CDAF technology that Pentax has is brutally bad compared to Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, or Sony.

Very true, that does need lots of work.

Pentax is more of a market follower than leader or innovator. They are still playing catch-up on flash and PDAF technology. I hope Pentax comes out with a FF EVIL and a new modern mount, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. In about 5 years, after the market is fully saturated, Pentax will jump in.

Pentax did take the lead firmly when they invented the SLR, back when they dared to take risks. It was followed by lots of success.

[Pål Jensen]

Of course an FF Pentax MILC would force a reaction from those other companies. It will eat at CaNiSon's FF DSLR market. It will certainly eat at Leica's market. Maybe Pentax is just scared of that reaction?

Well, I think it is because it won't sell at all. Mirrorless is mostly bought as P&S substitute. 99% of serious photographers prefer DSLR's. An FF mirrorless will fit the same niche as a rangefinder did in the film days. Too small a niche to interest the major manufacturerrs.