[Fogel70]

Can Pentax do the K-500/K-50 trick on a Full Frame? Making one the budget choice without making it to difficult on the production line?

I doubt it will work very well, as the difference in price and features would be too small for FF. They would probably be better pff with only one model instead. But it might take a few generations of FF before Pentax is ready to make genuine budget models. First gen of a product is usually premium priced, so Pentax will probably start off with an advanced model.

[Aristophanes]

I doubt it will work very well, as the difference in price and features would be too small for FF. They would probably be better pff with only one model instead. But it might take a few generations of FF before Pentax is ready to make genuine budget models. First gen of a product is usually premium priced, so Pentax will probably start off with an advanced model.

They need a D600 to start. Nothing more. No D800 or D4 equivalent, but Pentax must pay attention to the video market. Skimping there will cost sales.

As for a budget model, they should take a trick from Nikon and sell older generations for a few business cycles after a new model. That will temper the used and trade-in market.

At least Pentax won't have to compete against institutional and rental used market dumps.

Again, not the body that's the problem; it's a full-fledged lens array. Look at Fuji. Quick to market with 4-5 bodies in 3 years for their X-mount, but lens development lags. That cannot happen to a Pentax FF DSLR.

[TropicalMonkey]

I am too simplistic. Assuming first FF is going to be something similar to D600: is FF design going to be that much different from APSC? FF has a bigger sensor which is designed and manufactured by someone else and the image processing technology which is already in place in K5 etc (which might needs some modification for a slightly higher number of pixels). If they can design K01/Q/K50 etc then why can't they do an FF? What am I missing here in this thought? Only problem I can think of is that the sales of APSC specific lenses will be affected by an FF release.

Nikon already patented the idea of having a replaceable sensor module which can convert any 35mm film camera into an FF digital camera. If they release such a device then we can convert any old Pentax film camera into an FF.

[Fogel70]

They need a D600 to start. Nothing more. No D800 or D4 equivalent, but Pentax must pay attention to the video market. Skimping there will cost sales.

I doubt that it will happen. R&D cost will be too high initially for the first model and they probably can't trim down the manufacturing cost on the first run.

If they come with a D600, they might need a D800 price on it (or higher). So I believe they will have to make a more advanced model for being able to sell it with higher margin to cover the cost. With the second or third FF camera R&D cost will be much lower and they will be able to trim down manufacturing cost on all the part to be able to sell a budget model.

After all, there is a many reasons for FI Nikon releasing D4 before D800, and D800 before D600.

[Fogel70]

I am too simplistic. Assuming first FF is going to be something similar to D600: is FF design going to be that much different from APSC? FF has a bigger sensor which is designed and manufactured by someone else and the image processing technology which is already in place in K5 etc (which might needs some modification for a slightly higher number of pixels). If they can design K01/Q/K50 etc then why can't they do an FF? What am I missing here in this thought? Only problem I can think of is that the sales of APSC specific lenses will be affected by an FF release.

Almost every part in the camera has to be redesigned for FF, so there is a big initial cost in developing them. And as FF will sell in much lower volume than APS-C, the price on the FF camera is much more affected by this.

Nikon already patented the idea of having a replaceable sensor module which can convert any 35mm film camera into an FF digital camera. If they release such a device then we can convert any old Pentax film camera into an FF.

This will never happen for many reasons. It will be way too complex to make a product like this, and I doubt any manufacturer is interested in manufacturing a product meant to be used on cameras that they discontinued 30-40 years ago.

One reason for Nikon making the patent for this is to prevent some third party manufacturer trying to do it, but I really doubt it was ever meant to be produced.

[TropicalMonkey]

Almost every part in the camera has to be redesigned for FF, so there is a big initial cost in developing them. .

That is where I am lost. Didn't they have to redesign everything for K-01? Or was it based on another design which already existed? How many tablets are being designed based on ARM chips do they base their design on some other pre-existing product?

And as FF will sell in much lower volume than APS-C, the price on the FF camera is much more affected by this.

Well.. won't that be true with every little P&S camera we see?

Shoot, they only planned 10,000 645's and look what happened.

Were they able to sell more than 10,000?

[Fogel70]

That is where I am lost. Didn't they have to redesign everything for K-01? Or was it based on another design which already existed? How many tablets are being designed based on ARM chips do they base their design on some other pre-existing product?


Well.. won't that be true with every little P&S camera we see?

Few parts on K-01 was brand new design that required heavy R&D investments, most "new" on K-01 was the parts that was removed, and the MN design.

High volume products don't suffer as much from R&D cost as much as a low volume Pentax FF would. And on most P&S there is very little change from one generation to next, and in many cases P&S is not developed by OEM manufactures, and on some P&S the same design is used by several manufactures with some minor difference. FI Pentax MX-1 is based on the same design as Olympus XZ-2.

[Kunzite]

Well, there are R&D intensive parts which could be shared, with a new high-end APS-C DSLR; the electronics for example (e.g. a new PRIME). What's missing are FF-ready components from previous models (e.g. viewfinder, AF system, mirror box...)
The body itself should not be a problem, maybe it could also share components with APS-C.

Because of the initial cost (made worse by the smaller expected volumes) and because it would be the only Pentax FF for a while, I would also say a more advanced model (close to D800-level) could make sense.

[Aristophanes]

I doubt that it will happen. R&D cost will be too high initially for the first model and they probably can't trim down the manufacturing cost on the first run.

If they come with a D600, they might need a D800 price on it (or higher). So I believe they will have to make a more advanced model for being able to sell it with higher margin to cover the cost. With the second or third FF camera R&D cost will be much lower and they will be able to trim down manufacturing cost on all the part to be able to sell a budget model.

After all, there is a many reasons for FI Nikon releasing D4 before D800, and D800 before D600.

Pentax's lens development could never justify a D800-level body. Not even close.

The Pentax distributor system is almost exclusively consumer retail. They have no sales, service, or support system for anything above a D600 price point FF system. Pentax has always been a consumer retail operation in production and has never (maybe the LX is the exception) put out anything in the price and market range as the D800 in relative terms. For example, Pentax has no equivalent to the D300, nor the long lenses, nor the wides upon which such systems depend.

Pentax has never played in that professional market so any body hey come out with will compete in the sub-$2,000 category. Pentax is no Nikon who can draw upon professional and institutional sales to buffer the volumes. Any FF you se from Pentax will almost certainly be prosumer/consumer priced.

[Fogel70]

I don't see D800 as a true professional level camera. I would also guess that a large majority of those who get D800 are not pros. I can't see how Pentax will make any profit on a $2000 FF DSLR. At least not on the first few generations.

There seems to be quite a few Pentax users prepared to pay premium price on FA Limited lenses, and I think many of them would also be willing to pay premium for a FF DSLR designed for them, and probably also get more FA Limiteds if available. Pentax need to find their own route into FF segment, and will not gain much on following what Canikon do.

[Aristophanes]

I don't see D800 as a true professional level camera. I would also guess that a large majority of those who get D800 are not pros. I can't see how Pentax will make any profit on a $2000 FF DSLR. At least not on the first few generations.

There seems to be quite a few Pentax users prepared to pay premium price on FA Limited lenses, and I think many of them would also be willing to pay premium for a FF DSLR designed for them, and probably also get more FA Limiteds if available. Pentax need to find their own route into FF segment, and will not gain much on following what Canikon do.

Look at Nikon's advertising. The D600 is advertised in National Geographic, full page:

"Finally, there's a full-frame Nikon for your full-time passion. The Nikon D600: A full-frame camera within reach of serious enthusiasts."

They position the D800 as a pro camera.

"Meet the Nikon D800, a 36.3 megapixel FX-format HD-SLR for professional ..."

From:

Nikon D800 D-SLR Camera | High Dynamic Range Camera

There is no "own route" for an FF DSLR. It's a mature system that sells on price and past allegiance. For Pentax it's all about price point. Even with 3 Limited lenses at higher price points the entire Pentax line is bereft of the high-end glass that would be necessary for a $3,000 body.

[monochrome]

Few parts on K-01 was brand new design that required heavy R&D investments, most "new" on K-01 was the parts that was removed, and the MN design.

IS sensor shift was a completely new design with only 2 smaller magnets, as were the electronic boards (smaller) and the Prime-M imaging engine. There is very little open space inside.

Much of the new engineering is used in the K30 and K50.

[monochrome]

Ergo, unless Ricoh wants to compete in the pro market and is prepared to lose money there for many years while it builds out infrastructure and a lens catalog, Pentax will never make what we think of as a a FF pro dSLR. Without the shared pro technology driving a need for volume, it is unlikely Pentax will ever make what we think of as an enthusiast FF dSLR. It isn't even clear Pentax could get Sony to sell them FX sensors at a competitive time in the product cycle.

That doesn't mean they will never make a camera with an FX sensor.

[Fogel70]

IS sensor shift was a completely new design with only 2 smaller magnets, as were the electronic boards (smaller) and the Prime-M imaging engine. There is very little open space inside.

Much of the new engineering is used in the K30 and K50.

I would not say the SR was a complete new design, but a small revision on the design to make it more compact to make it fit inside K-01.
Pentax used smaller coils on K-01 and had to place both coils for horizontal movement on the same side. It also looks like the available movement on the sensor in K-01 in more limited than on the older design. The limite movement might also be the reason for not using SR for movie recording, but "digital" stabilization instead.

K-01


Older design

[Franky2step]

That's a classic false assumption and equation.

1) This assumes that old, film era lenses will perform well on a new digital sensor. Even Leica had to redesign all their glass for new digital sensors.

2) Therefore your current customer is your best customer because they can both use older glass when wanted (investment preservation = loyalty points) plus get their new lens business. We know this because even on APS-C people bought new APS-C glass.

3) It also assumes that a new mount will attract new customers. This is unproven and therefore entirely speculative. Ricoh bought the K-mount and Sony the A-mount. They both go up against huge installed legacy base of Canikon DSLR mounts both of which (and Sony) satisfy both APS and FF sizes with the same bayonets respectively. Realistically it is APS-C which requires a new, smaller mount, not FF. This is what Fuji has done with their X-series and Sony the NEX.

4) This assumes a new mount may attract users from other installed bases, especially Canikon. A new FF mount will have no glass save at launch. It will then go up against a huge array of already designed and manufactured new equipment offered by other brands in a comprehensive, market-tested package, with an educated sales force knowledgeable in the product line.

5) A new FF mirrorless mount is even more problematic because mirrorless = EVF instead OVF. There is substantial evidence that EVF's have not found a solid footing especially amongst pros. EVF is not a mature enough technology to build a new mount structure upon. Again, look at Fuji who put huge $$$ into a hybrid VF because they knew and stated that an EVF-only system was not feasible. The easiest route for Pentax FF mirrorless is the K-01 FF with an external EVF.

6) Camera bodies have 2-5 year production cycles. Glass has up to 20-year production cycles. Therefore the long-term profits are in glass (and flash systems, and other accessories.) The longer you can amortize your sunk costs the better the product line's financial position. One does not make a new mount without a lot of thought and consideration. IMO the Q system is a dead end designed around a too-small sensor for too high a price. So I have little faith Ricoh/Pentax can pull off a new mount effectively.

Maybe a stupid question regarding mirror-less EVF and registry distance: does mirror less mean a new mount as PK lenses would not work without an adapter that places the lens further from the sensor? Besides my K5 I also shoot a Fuji X100s and have come to like using an EVF in both overly bright light and low light situations.