[Uluru]

The fact that you think the 645D as Big, slow and clumsy with limited lens choices speaks volumes of your own experience (lack thereof) with the camera and the Pentax 645 system as a whole.
I think using characters from the Iliad as an analogy for camera formats is a poor choice.

645D system is large compared to K-mount camera, it presupposes a different approach to photography too. I have used medium format, and I know how it works.
It has set Pentax's foot into the digital medium format. And that's all.

However, you are not addressing my notes directly, but rather using poor tactics to win the argument: a) one is to totally ignore my conclusion but without any counter example of yours own, and b) you are using my own pre-supposed beliefs (apparent lack of use of medium format camera) to 'conclude' my notes were irrelevant.

So perhaps you try better: argue better, and disclose in your own reasoning why the launch of the 645D was more beneficiary for the Pentax users as a whole, than the launch of the FF camera for K-mount.

You can use any historical play or story as an analogy.

[Digitalis]

why the launch of the 645D was more beneficiary for the Pentax users as a whole, than the launch of the FF camera for K-mount.

That is pretty simple because it brought pentax to the attention of serious professional photographers, who are willing to spend serious money to obtain the best image quality. And the 645D still holds its own against the major players in MFDB camera systems. the 645D isn't a consumer oriented camera, if Pentax could have made the 645D smaller and faster with the materials they had available I'm pretty sure they would have. Many of the design choices made in the making of the 645D generally borrowed heavily from the excellent design of the of the 645NII, of all the 645 cameras I have used I have no hesitation with saying the 645 NII is one of the greatest 645 cameras of the film era.And because of that 645NII heritage there were quite a large number of photographers who were already invested in the Pentax 645 system that were very satisfied with the 645D and bought one - and in some cases, two.

Full frame or FX Format is still a consumer oriented product, sure it will gain the attention of professionals - but not in the same way the 645D did. At the time the 645D was a rather daring move for a company with a history of producing consumer oriented APS-C format DSLR cameras.

You can use any historical play or story as an analogy.

In an analogy I prefer to use events that actually happened. Stories and plays are nearly always exaggerated and distorted for dramatic effect - I have allergies to drama.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Half of the posters see it coming just behind the corner, year after year. The other half finds all kinds of reasons why it is not needed or would be in fact bad.

You speak for yourself. I'm not in either half. If and when Pentax produce a FF camera, I will buy it, but I'm content to let matters take their course and take pictures with what I have - and it's pretty good.

[tclausen]

If Pentax put out a full frame camera tomorrow, do you think you'd want one?

I know I would.

Want one? Of course, I'd not turn you down if you offered to gift me one.

Need one? No, I do not think that in my photography, a new camera would help (practice would)

Buy one? Probably not; there're other priorities for my discretional spending in photograph.

I'd be happy to pay for a 150mm(ish) Limited, though, of the same quality as the 31mm Ltd - there's a hole in my kit

[Pål Jensen]

645D is such niche product.

But Petax was indeed wrong for releasing the 645D before the FF. Although they are both niche products, one niche is more relevant in people's minds than other niche, because one utilises the widely popular K-mount, and is perceived as a natural peak above the clouds. Without it, the offer always seems incomplete. A mountain never worth climbing. .

I disagree. By not releasing the 645D they would have left all their MF users high and dry virtually abandoning the system. In fact, most Pentax high-end users are from the MF world. The K-mount is satisfied by the APS bodies; after all 95% of 35mm lens system users, and now we are talking Nikon and Canon, are using APS bodies....
FF may be a good idea but it isn't mandatory....

[Na Horuk]

FF may be a good idea but it isn't mandatory....

I think a FF might not be a necessity for the actual users, but it is important to have a high end flagship, because apparently a lot of people choose their brand like that. Even though they probably will never own that flagship, they still dream about it, thinking they will upgrade to it really soon. This is the feeling I get from a lot of multibrand forums.

[Digitalis]

it is important to have a high end flagship, because apparently a lot of people choose their brand like that.

Bur as I recall in the film era pentax never really had a "flagship" camera until pentax came out with the LX, while Canon,Nikon,Leica,Minolta(RIP), Contax(RIP) -all did. Pentax was rather late to the party, although the LX had features than many competing cameras did not have it still wasn't enough to garner a real following because as we all know pentax was never been all that good with marketing and attracting attention from the demographic that their cameras are designed to target. And that lack of marketing savvy still continues - look what happened to the K-01. Pentax releases products, and they typically let the product find its place in the market, instead of marketing the product to the target consumer demographic.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 03-10-2013 at 09:07 PM.

[zxaar]

That FF still is single digit is, AFAIK, a fact. I'm guilty of dismissing imagination and replace it with facts, all right.

Like pentax's market share , which is also in single digit.

By the way, FF didn't get cheaper from 2009 (A850, $2000 MSRP). Oops, I did it again

Even 2000$ is okey price point for a FF today. Also it does not mean it will not get cheaper in future. Thats a fact.

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Bur as I recall in the film era pentax never really had a "flagship" camera until pentax came out with the LX, while Canon,Nikon,Leica,Minolta(RIP), Contax(RIP) -all did. Pentax was rather late to the party, although the LX had features than many competing cameras did not have it still wasn't enough to garner a real following because as we all know pentax was never been all that good with marketing and attracting attention from the demographic that their cameras are designed to target. And that lack of marketing savvy still continues - look what happened to the K-01. Pentax releases products, and they typically let the product find its place in the market, instead of marketing the product to the target consumer demographic.

I agree with much of what you say as far as 35mm cameras go, but in the film era Pentax had its 67, which was highly regarded and surely was a flagship for the brand. In the 1960s Pentax had the Spotmatic, but the real "pro" cameras in those days were Leica, Nikon F and Rollei among a few others. I don't think seriously that Pentax looked to compete in the professional market, designing its cameras for knowledgeable amateurs, much as now. I'm not sure if the LX was a serious effort to get into the professional market - it was (and still is) a superb camera, but it was really too late. The only contender who managed to get a toehold into the market dominated by the Nikon F was the Canon F1 (I wonder what happened to Canon), which was launched, if I recall with a comprehensive system of lenses and accessories, and much fanfare. I recall being filled with desire, though in those days there was no hope of affording a Pentax MX, let alone a Canon F1. So I stuck to Pentax, and have been quite happy with the brand ever since.

[Kunzite]

Like pentax's market share , which is also in single digit.

The point being?
Those are different things, why are we discussing Pentax' market share?

Even 2000$ is okey price point for a FF today. Also it does not mean it will not get cheaper in future. Thats a fact.

What is a fact, that we don't know if the price will go up, down or remain constant? OK, then.

[Digitalis]

I agree with much of what you say as far as 35mm cameras go, but in the film era Pentax had its 67, which was highly regarded and surely was a flagship for the brand.

Yes, the Pentax 67 was a flagship in many areas, being the only 67 format SLR with 35mm handling characteristics and superb telephoto lenses. Though as far as 35mm cameras were concerned the Pentax 67 wasn't even on the radar. Back then the market was significantly more segmented than it is now.

[zxaar]

The point being?
Those are different things, why are we discussing Pentax' market share?
.

Why they are two different things, market share is what market share is, one and the same thing. All the things you want to conclude about FF from its market share you shall be concluding the same for pentax itself too.

What is a fact, that we don't know if the price will go up, down or remain constant? OK, then.

thank you. I wanted to hear this. The fact is that you have no way of knowing what is going to happen. So this statement that you made earlier is useless and has no bearing on future.

By the way, FF didn't get cheaper from 2009 (A850, $2000 MSRP). Oops, I did it again

[Kunzite]

Why they are two different things, market share is what market share is, one and the same thing. All the things you want to conclude about FF from its market share you shall be concluding the same for pentax itself too.

Because they are different things?
1. The FF:APS-C DSLR markets ratio, which proves beyond doubt that APS-C are mainstream and FF aren't.
2. Pentax competing on the mainstream market but having a low market share.
I'm not sure what you want me to conclude about Pentax, or what you're trying to prevent me from concluding about FF. Please state it clearly.

thank you. I wanted to hear this. The fact is that you have no way of knowing what is going to happen. So this statement that you made earlier is useless and has no bearing on future.

My statement is talking about the present, it's ridiculous to claim its invalidity because it "has no bearing on the future". Please re-think if you really have reasons to "combat" my affirmations.

There are actually methods which can be used to estimate into the future, based on past data. It's not the same as precognition, but it's much better than just making up stuff But, again, we weren't talking about future.

[ogl]

What about them? They had a digital FF from 2008. By the way, their first two FF models weren't really winners.

It was model which could support A-mount users. And it completed the mission. A900 was really interesting machine. And a lot of A-mount users bought this camera and still using A900. Very good final colors of the final picture - I like A900's colors.

It was the winner for A-mount society.

Pentax needs the same model. To keep the small army of K-mount users and try to return some of old users with new toys.

Forget the market share.

[Kunzite]

Well, it was a winner which failed... I hope Pentax will do better (I'm sure they will, or at least they're capable of doing better)