FF Under Development

Kunzite · 12-20-2012, 02:21 AM

Laurentiu Cristofor:
Apparently, Pentax believes they can sell that lens, in limited quantities of course (they're making 400 units per month). Would you be so kind to explain them how wrong they are, how nobody would ever buy it? Sorry for the sarcasm, but you should realize that even if nobody here would buy this lens, it doesn't mean there isn't a market/purpose.
Let's not forget that Pentax has access to way more information than we, and they are planning in advance - maybe the 560mm will have a matching camera in the not so distant future?

With only bargain lenses (which seems appreciated by most), could Pentax push the K-mount forward? I don't think so; forward means better, means higher end, means more expensive. Pentax MUST move higher end with the K-mount, if only to keep the customers willing to spend $$$$.

I am not exactly speculating about Pentax Ricoh's plans, by the way. I know they're planning to expand, they declared their intentions to double the sales in the following year, there are a lot of interviews & such in a very optimistic tone (completely unlike after Hoya hostile takeover), there are lens roadmaps. Plainly put, there is enough information to know the pessimistic view is completely unfounded, at least when talking about their intentions (we will have to see how the execution goes, but one shouldn't consider them incompetents).

About the reason why there is no FF MILC (excluding certain rangefinders): maybe it wouldn't be profitable?

mecrox · 12-20-2012, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by Ash

The response to the 560/5.6 on this forum is hardly an indication of this lens's value. The majority of the negativity surrounds the cost of the lens. And what useful statements can be made by those who have never used the lens?

Cosina and Zeiss not making K-mount lenses are similarly no indication on the future of the K-mount. How many years has the K-mount been around? And how many of those years did it have 3rd party support? Leave alone the fact that Tamron and Sigma form the bulk of the 3rd party lenses for Pentax, their support being 'partial' for a reason. The argument just doesn't follow.

The conclusion is K-mount will do just fine. A FF camera is in the making. More K-mount lenses are being produced and the roadmap expanding. MILC is a separate market and is not a favourable option for many photographers.

I've just been reading the Christmas issue of Amateur Photographer here which is full of round-ups and predictions. What's clear is that the MILCs (or CSCs if you prefer) are a very vibrant and active sector, far more so than traditional DSLRs. If you add together the new lenses and cameras in 2012 and expected in 2013 you have far more going on than in any other area and some of it is of very high quality (Fujifilm's new lenses, for example). The implication is that software and high-tech corporations are going to get in on this act in the form of operating systems for cameras (Android, e.g.), new charging methods for batteries, 3/4G connectivity and in-camera apps which can capture the user and keep them in a walled garden from developing the shot or video to a destination on the net. This is the broad middle of the market where the volume is. What goes on here will eventually work its way up the chain into what, at the moment, folks say is the territory of this mysterious beast "the serious photographer". The problem is that there aren't enough of these folks to go round between the major players and, anyway, in the end profit and volume will dictate what happens and I doubt that either will turn out to reside in the traditional DSLR.

Saying the K-mount will do just fine is true in the short term but as an argument it is really looking backwards. Looking forwards, a new landscape is emerging and any camera-maker which tries to ignore it risks being left looking like a Victorian gentleman singing the praises of the steam engine in the era of the ramjet. Digital = software and connectivity. Personally I don't have any particular opinion on FF but a company which won't engage with CSC cameras risks being left high and dry on the sidelines. Camera-makers may think they can control their business with the hardware, but chances are the real shots will be called by those who own or patent all the software going into cameras without which the hardware is just a lump of metal. A foretaste of that is the recent sale of the Kodak patents which were bought by the software multinationals and not by the hardware guys, as Thom Hogan points out. In a way, formats and FF are yesterday's argument, being all about what cameras are made of. The argument now is about what cameras can do - their intelligence, so to speak - and interact with.

Kunzite · 12-20-2012, 03:05 AM - **1 Like**

Yes, MILCs are (with few exceptions) commodity items, a lot of noise, tons of "new" products, rock bottom prices - we know this. But commodity items aren't very profitable, if at all.
Extending your reasoning, Pentax and pretty much anyone else should start making smartphones: they have cameras, they have Android, 4G connectivity, Facebook integration and everything else a photographer might need

They also dwarfs in volume the MILC market.

I can see how Canikon are endangered and Olympus, Panasonic, Sony are prospering... NOT!

gazonk · 12-20-2012, 03:22 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Yes, MILCs are (with few exceptions) commodity items, a lot of noise, tons of "new" products, rock bottom prices - we know this. But commodity items aren't very profitable, if at all.

I wonder how profitable the Q/Q10 is, it seems to sell very well in Japan.

And then there's the future 645 MILC ;-)

Kunzite · 12-20-2012, 03:25 AM

The Q is a glorified point&shoot with interchangeable lenses, it shouldn't cost much to make.
645 MILC, I'm not sure they'll do that.

mecrox · 12-20-2012, 03:29 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Yes, MILCs are (with few exceptions) commodity items, a lot of noise, tons of "new" products, rock bottom prices - we know this. But commodity items aren't very profitable, if at all.
Extending your reasoning, Pentax and pretty much anyone else should start making smartphones: they have cameras, they have Android, 4G connectivity, Facebook integration and everything else a photographer might need

They also dwarfs in volume the MILC market.

I can see how Canikon are endangered and Olympus, Panasonic, Sony are prospering... NOT!

I think the implication is that the camera-makers risk losing control of their own industry and being relegated to gruntwork. They add a box, battery and lens to a camera on a chip bought from Sony Semiconductor or Samsung and are allowed to add a skin to the camera OS they are obliged to install. All the profit is sucked out by the chip-maker and the software folks. In a similar vein, most of the big book publishing houses are still around. But, really, they are shadows of their former selves. The profit in the industry is now controlled by others - agents, retailers, software multinationals. The profit is where all the power and innovation are.

My understanding is that Olympus camera shipments were up by something like 50 per cent in the second quarter of this year.

gazonk · 12-20-2012, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

645 MILC, I'm not sure they'll do that.

See the interview thread, at least they think it makes more sense than a FF MILC.

gazonk · 12-20-2012, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by mecrox

I think the implication is that the camera-makers risk losing control of their own industry and being relegated to gruntwork.

They still have lenses!

Kunzite · 12-20-2012, 04:14 AM

Well, that's an argument against going MILC, and stick with the more traditional products.

Originally posted by gazonk

See the interview thread, at least they think it makes more sense than a FF MILC.

Which doesn't necessarily means they'll make it.

**Ash** · 12-20-2012, 05:34 AM - **2 Likes**

Pentax have already entered the MILC market with the K-01. Between this fine little gem and the K-5, I'd still pick the K-5. The same would go for FF. Whether or not MILC is the future, dSLRs will still have a decent market share, particularly in the prosumer/enthusiast and pro market.

jogiba · 12-20-2012, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote

there is no MILC with a FF sensor

Yes there is, I have been using it with all of my Pentax APS-C and FF lenses since it has both APS-C and FF modes with shutter speeds from 30-1/8000 sec and ISO up to 32000.

IchabodCrane · 12-20-2012, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Yes, MILCs are (with few exceptions) commodity items, a lot of noise, tons of "new" products, rock bottom prices - we know this. But commodity items aren't very profitable, if at all.
Extending your reasoning, Pentax and pretty much anyone else should start making smartphones: they have cameras, they have Android, 4G connectivity, Facebook integration and everything else a photographer might need

They also dwarfs in volume the MILC market.

I can see how Canikon are endangered and Olympus, Panasonic, Sony are prospering... NOT!

Is there real data to support what you're writing? By all accounts, the bulk of dSLR sales are also at rock-bottom prices. Lots of T3, T4i, D3100/3200/5100 sales. Also, who says commodity products can't be profitable?

More important, why would Olympus essentially give up on dSLR and put all of their eggs into MILC if all of the money to be made is in dSLR? Why did Sony/Minolta get out of dSLR?

Kunzite · 12-20-2012, 08:33 AM

Product prices are publicly available. You can also take sales charts and average the prices, for DSLRs/MILCs.
Commodity products could be profitable with enough volume, but does a traditional photographic company want to be in such a market? To make themselves their strengths irrelevant, having instead Android, 4G connectivity, touch screens and so on in a Galaxy Camera shape; that's shooting oneself in the foot.
For now IMO the current approach is the best: priority on DSLRs, but also have a foothold into MILCs (in a manner which won't hurt the main market).

Olympus failed with their DSLRs; they had to try something new in order to continue. Their 4/3 promise didn't realize; they weren't cheaper, nor smaller, nor better (they had some top-notch lenses, though). Sony also tried hard, without much success - so they transformed a photographic product into something more in their area of expertise.
Let's see first companies which didn't failed, giving up on their DSLRs and jumping to MILCs (that means Canon, Nikon or Pentax).

hangman43 · 12-20-2012, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by IchabodCrane

Is there real data to support what you're writing? By all accounts, the bulk of dSLR sales are also at rock-bottom prices. Lots of T3, T4i, D3100/3200/5100 sales. Also, who says commodity products can't be profitable?

More important, why would Olympus essentially give up on dSLR and put all of their eggs into MILC if all of the money to be made is in dSLR? Why did Sony/Minolta get out of dSLR?

I believe that the reason that the above mentioned got out of the Dslr business is because none of the above came out with a camera that could compete with the big 2 so they decided to go a different direction. All of the Dslr's you mentioned are all beginner cameras that are basically disposable you do not see major discounts on the higher end ones like the 7D or the D7000 the D90 is still selling for higher than they D5100 and the 60D is still got a pretty decent price tag. If it is so profitable to go MILC why has it taken Nikon and Canon so long to do it and why are they not concentrating more on it because they know the market better than we do on forums that is why.

hangman43 · 12-20-2012, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Kunzite

Product prices are publicly available. You can also take sales charts and average the prices, for DSLRs/MILCs.
Commodity products could be profitable with enough volume, but does a traditional photographic company want to be in such a market? To make themselves their strengths irrelevant, having instead Android, 4G connectivity, touch screens and so on in a Galaxy Camera shape; that's shooting oneself in the foot.
For now IMO the current approach is the best: priority on DSLRs, but also have a foothold into MILCs (in a manner which won't hurt the main market).

Olympus failed with their DSLRs; they had to try something new in order to continue. Their 4/3 promise didn't realize; they weren't cheaper, nor smaller, nor better (they had some top-notch lenses, though). Sony also tried hard, without much success - so they transformed a photographic product into something more in their area of expertise.
Let's see first companies which didn't failed, giving up on their DSLRs and jumping to MILCs (that means Canon, Nikon or Pentax).

I was typing my response at the same time as you but you said it better than me same exact idea though and I thoroughly agree .

12-20-2012, 02:50 AM	#767
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by Ash The response to the 560/5.6 on this forum is hardly an indication of this lens's value. The majority of the negativity surrounds the cost of the lens. And what useful statements can be made by those who have never used the lens? Cosina and Zeiss not making K-mount lenses are similarly no indication on the future of the K-mount. How many years has the K-mount been around? And how many of those years did it have 3rd party support? Leave alone the fact that Tamron and Sigma form the bulk of the 3rd party lenses for Pentax, their support being 'partial' for a reason. The argument just doesn't follow. The conclusion is K-mount will do just fine. A FF camera is in the making. More K-mount lenses are being produced and the roadmap expanding. MILC is a separate market and is not a favourable option for many photographers. I've just been reading the Christmas issue of Amateur Photographer here which is full of round-ups and predictions. What's clear is that the MILCs (or CSCs if you prefer) are a very vibrant and active sector, far more so than traditional DSLRs. If you add together the new lenses and cameras in 2012 and expected in 2013 you have far more going on than in any other area and some of it is of very high quality (Fujifilm's new lenses, for example). The implication is that software and high-tech corporations are going to get in on this act in the form of operating systems for cameras (Android, e.g.), new charging methods for batteries, 3/4G connectivity and in-camera apps which can capture the user and keep them in a walled garden from developing the shot or video to a destination on the net. This is the broad middle of the market where the volume is. What goes on here will eventually work its way up the chain into what, at the moment, folks say is the territory of this mysterious beast "the serious photographer". The problem is that there aren't enough of these folks to go round between the major players and, anyway, in the end profit and volume will dictate what happens and I doubt that either will turn out to reside in the traditional DSLR. Saying the K-mount will do just fine is true in the short term but as an argument it is really looking backwards. Looking forwards, a new landscape is emerging and any camera-maker which tries to ignore it risks being left looking like a Victorian gentleman singing the praises of the steam engine in the era of the ramjet. Digital = software and connectivity. Personally I don't have any particular opinion on FF but a company which won't engage with CSC cameras risks being left high and dry on the sidelines. Camera-makers may think they can control their business with the hardware, but chances are the real shots will be called by those who own or patent all the software going into cameras without which the hardware is just a lump of metal. A foretaste of that is the recent sale of the Kodak patents which were bought by the software multinationals and not by the hardware guys, as Thom Hogan points out. In a way, formats and FF are yesterday's argument, being all about what cameras are made of. The argument now is about what cameras can do - their intelligence, so to speak - and interact with. Last edited by mecrox; 12-20-2012 at 03:06 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
ready to go! first development coming soon	dj_saunter	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	17	05-15-2011 09:14 PM
Development: Rwanda style.	ihasa	General Talk	16	04-07-2011 11:37 PM
two bath development	icywarm	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	22	01-08-2011 12:27 AM
UN Human Development Report	mikemike	General Talk	5	11-05-2010 05:55 AM
Any Arrested Development (TV) fans here?	RolloR	General Talk	8	10-21-2010 08:25 PM

12-20-2012, 02:21 AM	#766
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Laurentiu Cristofor: Apparently, Pentax believes they can sell that lens, in limited quantities of course (they're making 400 units per month). Would you be so kind to explain them how wrong they are, how nobody would ever buy it? Sorry for the sarcasm, but you should realize that even if nobody here would buy this lens, it doesn't mean there isn't a market/purpose. Let's not forget that Pentax has access to way more information than we, and they are planning in advance - maybe the 560mm will have a matching camera in the not so distant future? With only bargain lenses (which seems appreciated by most), could Pentax push the K-mount forward? I don't think so; forward means better, means higher end, means more expensive. Pentax MUST move higher end with the K-mount, if only to keep the customers willing to spend $$$$. I am not exactly speculating about Pentax Ricoh's plans, by the way. I know they're planning to expand, they declared their intentions to double the sales in the following year, there are a lot of interviews & such in a very optimistic tone (completely unlike after Hoya hostile takeover), there are lens roadmaps. Plainly put, there is enough information to know the pessimistic view is completely unfounded, at least when talking about their intentions (we will have to see how the execution goes, but one shouldn't consider them incompetents). About the reason why there is no FF MILC (excluding certain rangefinders): maybe it wouldn't be profitable?

12-20-2012, 03:05 AM - 1 Like	#768
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Yes, MILCs are (with few exceptions) commodity items, a lot of noise, tons of "new" products, rock bottom prices - we know this. But commodity items aren't very profitable, if at all. Extending your reasoning, Pentax and pretty much anyone else should start making smartphones: they have cameras, they have Android, 4G connectivity, Facebook integration and everything else a photographer might need They also dwarfs in volume the MILC market. I can see how Canikon are endangered and Olympus, Panasonic, Sony are prospering... NOT!

12-20-2012, 03:22 AM	#769
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Kunzite Yes, MILCs are (with few exceptions) commodity items, a lot of noise, tons of "new" products, rock bottom prices - we know this. But commodity items aren't very profitable, if at all. I wonder how profitable the Q/Q10 is, it seems to sell very well in Japan. And then there's the future 645 MILC ;-)

12-20-2012, 03:25 AM	#770
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	The Q is a glorified point&shoot with interchangeable lenses, it shouldn't cost much to make. 645 MILC, I'm not sure they'll do that.

12-20-2012, 03:29 AM	#771
mecrox Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,375	Originally posted by Kunzite Yes, MILCs are (with few exceptions) commodity items, a lot of noise, tons of "new" products, rock bottom prices - we know this. But commodity items aren't very profitable, if at all. Extending your reasoning, Pentax and pretty much anyone else should start making smartphones: they have cameras, they have Android, 4G connectivity, Facebook integration and everything else a photographer might need They also dwarfs in volume the MILC market. I can see how Canikon are endangered and Olympus, Panasonic, Sony are prospering... NOT! I think the implication is that the camera-makers risk losing control of their own industry and being relegated to gruntwork. They add a box, battery and lens to a camera on a chip bought from Sony Semiconductor or Samsung and are allowed to add a skin to the camera OS they are obliged to install. All the profit is sucked out by the chip-maker and the software folks. In a similar vein, most of the big book publishing houses are still around. But, really, they are shadows of their former selves. The profit in the industry is now controlled by others - agents, retailers, software multinationals. The profit is where all the power and innovation are. My understanding is that Olympus camera shipments were up by something like 50 per cent in the second quarter of this year.

12-20-2012, 03:51 AM	#772
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by Kunzite 645 MILC, I'm not sure they'll do that. See the interview thread, at least they think it makes more sense than a FF MILC.

12-20-2012, 03:53 AM	#773
gazonk Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Oslo area, Norway Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,746	Originally posted by mecrox I think the implication is that the camera-makers risk losing control of their own industry and being relegated to gruntwork. They still have lenses!

12-20-2012, 04:14 AM	#774
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Well, that's an argument against going MILC, and stick with the more traditional products. Originally posted by gazonk See the interview thread, at least they think it makes more sense than a FF MILC. Which doesn't necessarily means they'll make it.

12-20-2012, 05:34 AM - 2 Likes	#775
Ash Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	Pentax have already entered the MILC market with the K-01. Between this fine little gem and the K-5, I'd still pick the K-5. The same would go for FF. Whether or not MILC is the future, dSLRs will still have a decent market share, particularly in the prosumer/enthusiast and pro market.

12-20-2012, 06:37 AM	#776
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Quote: Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote there is no MILC with a FF sensor Yes there is, I have been using it with all of my Pentax APS-C and FF lenses since it has both APS-C and FF modes with shutter speeds from 30-1/8000 sec and ISO up to 32000.

12-20-2012, 07:11 AM	#777
IchabodCrane Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,728	Originally posted by Kunzite Yes, MILCs are (with few exceptions) commodity items, a lot of noise, tons of "new" products, rock bottom prices - we know this. But commodity items aren't very profitable, if at all. Extending your reasoning, Pentax and pretty much anyone else should start making smartphones: they have cameras, they have Android, 4G connectivity, Facebook integration and everything else a photographer might need They also dwarfs in volume the MILC market. I can see how Canikon are endangered and Olympus, Panasonic, Sony are prospering... NOT! Is there real data to support what you're writing? By all accounts, the bulk of dSLR sales are also at rock-bottom prices. Lots of T3, T4i, D3100/3200/5100 sales. Also, who says commodity products can't be profitable? More important, why would Olympus essentially give up on dSLR and put all of their eggs into MILC if all of the money to be made is in dSLR? Why did Sony/Minolta get out of dSLR?

12-20-2012, 08:33 AM	#778
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Product prices are publicly available. You can also take sales charts and average the prices, for DSLRs/MILCs. Commodity products could be profitable with enough volume, but does a traditional photographic company want to be in such a market? To make themselves their strengths irrelevant, having instead Android, 4G connectivity, touch screens and so on in a Galaxy Camera shape; that's shooting oneself in the foot. For now IMO the current approach is the best: priority on DSLRs, but also have a foothold into MILCs (in a manner which won't hurt the main market). Olympus failed with their DSLRs; they had to try something new in order to continue. Their 4/3 promise didn't realize; they weren't cheaper, nor smaller, nor better (they had some top-notch lenses, though). Sony also tried hard, without much success - so they transformed a photographic product into something more in their area of expertise. Let's see first companies which didn't failed, giving up on their DSLRs and jumping to MILCs (that means Canon, Nikon or Pentax).

12-20-2012, 08:42 AM	#779
hangman43 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Hueytown, Alabama Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,508	Originally posted by IchabodCrane Is there real data to support what you're writing? By all accounts, the bulk of dSLR sales are also at rock-bottom prices. Lots of T3, T4i, D3100/3200/5100 sales. Also, who says commodity products can't be profitable? More important, why would Olympus essentially give up on dSLR and put all of their eggs into MILC if all of the money to be made is in dSLR? Why did Sony/Minolta get out of dSLR? I believe that the reason that the above mentioned got out of the Dslr business is because none of the above came out with a camera that could compete with the big 2 so they decided to go a different direction. All of the Dslr's you mentioned are all beginner cameras that are basically disposable you do not see major discounts on the higher end ones like the 7D or the D7000 the D90 is still selling for higher than they D5100 and the 60D is still got a pretty decent price tag. If it is so profitable to go MILC why has it taken Nikon and Canon so long to do it and why are they not concentrating more on it because they know the market better than we do on forums that is why.

12-20-2012, 08:47 AM	#780
hangman43 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Hueytown, Alabama Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,508	Originally posted by Kunzite Product prices are publicly available. You can also take sales charts and average the prices, for DSLRs/MILCs. Commodity products could be profitable with enough volume, but does a traditional photographic company want to be in such a market? To make themselves their strengths irrelevant, having instead Android, 4G connectivity, touch screens and so on in a Galaxy Camera shape; that's shooting oneself in the foot. For now IMO the current approach is the best: priority on DSLRs, but also have a foothold into MILCs (in a manner which won't hurt the main market). Olympus failed with their DSLRs; they had to try something new in order to continue. Their 4/3 promise didn't realize; they weren't cheaper, nor smaller, nor better (they had some top-notch lenses, though). Sony also tried hard, without much success - so they transformed a photographic product into something more in their area of expertise. Let's see first companies which didn't failed, giving up on their DSLRs and jumping to MILCs (that means Canon, Nikon or Pentax). I was typing my response at the same time as you but you said it better than me same exact idea though and I thoroughly agree .