Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-25-2013, 04:17 AM   #181
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote

And in doing so, it is killing the former APS-C flagship price point and therefore killing revenues for APS-C only Pentax on a per unit basis.

It is just as much the other way around if not more so. I think the "delay" of the D400 is in order not to kill the sales of the D600 early in its life. They are different formats and don't necessarily compete over the same customers. Value is more complex than sensor size vs price....

08-25-2013, 04:20 AM   #182
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Pentax has to play in the volume market for equivalent margins per unit. They will not have the special glass to justify higher end bodies. They'd be making a low volume, presumably high margin D800 wannabe with nowhere near the system sales necessary to justify such limited gross revenues. It would be a $2400 body going up against a D600 at $1700 and the D600 comes with the whole system for $700 less. The Nikon owner has more left over for glass, perpetuating the cycle.
There is no volume FF market; particularly not for Pentax so that option is out.
08-25-2013, 05:00 AM   #183
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,429
Indeed; and for this reason they need margins to compensate for the low volume. Impossible while trying to undercut the competition by $450.
The "Pentax does not have a complete system" argument is not working, either. It's perfectly possible to start selling to those not wanting a 300mm f/2.8 (me, for example). The true alternative is to either give up, or to launch such lenses without a suitable body.
08-25-2013, 10:19 AM   #184
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,418
QuoteOriginally posted by Tonto Quote
Hopefully without the added weight of OS for Sony and Pentax cameras, unlikely now though.
This focal range doesn't really need to have OIS.

08-25-2013, 06:26 PM   #185
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
There is no volume FF market; particularly not for Pentax so that option is out.
The K-5 MSRP was $1750

The D600 is now retail at about that in average.

Sensor size doesn't determine volume. Price does.

FF is as volume capable at $1750 as any Pentax APS-C was at the same price.

Furthermore, Nikon's FX glass line is broader and deeper than its DX.
08-25-2013, 09:17 PM   #186
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary, AB CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 292
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
There is no volume FF market
And nobody will ever need more than 640k
08-25-2013, 11:27 PM   #187
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
The K-5 MSRP was $1750

The D600 is now retail at about that in average.

Sensor size doesn't determine volume. Price does.

FF is as volume capable at $1750 as any Pentax APS-C was at the same price.

Furthermore, Nikon's FX glass line is broader and deeper than its DX.
Pentax K5 at $1750 was not sold in hight volume, and it soon was sold at much lower price.

Nikon has a full line of FF glass which makes it cost less for APS-C users to upgrade to FF, as most APS-C users upgrading to FF already have FF glass.
And Nikon probably have 10x as many users upgrading to FF, which makes the volume sales.

At a price point the sales only get high volume if there is enough demand for such product, and as Nikon probably have at least 10x the users wanting to upgrade to FF, they can get volume sales when Pentax can't. Sony has already showed that low price on FF does not necessary lead to high volume sales.
08-26-2013, 06:34 AM   #188
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
Pentax K5 at $1750 was not sold in hight volume, and it soon was sold at much lower price.

Nikon has a full line of FF glass which makes it cost less for APS-C users to upgrade to FF, as most APS-C users upgrading to FF already have FF glass.
And Nikon probably have 10x as many users upgrading to FF, which makes the volume sales.

At a price point the sales only get high volume if there is enough demand for such product, and as Nikon probably have at least 10x the users wanting to upgrade to FF, they can get volume sales when Pentax can't. Sony has already showed that low price on FF does not necessary lead to high volume sales.
And eventually FF will drop well into the flagship APS-C price point (no D400 yet).

The biggest knock against FF is not the price because the cost curve is bending down (look at the vibrant used market), and it is not the availability of lenses (Canon and Nikon each have ~50 FX lenses each).

It's the size; the form factor. The major trend in cameras, especially ILC is smaller.

Sony's FF sold poorly because they had zero appropriate lenses and no video. The AF slow and the processing lacklustre.

08-26-2013, 07:18 AM   #189
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
And eventually FF will drop well into the flagship APS-C price point (no D400 yet).

The biggest knock against FF is not the price because the cost curve is bending down (look at the vibrant used market), and it is not the availability of lenses (Canon and Nikon each have ~50 FX lenses each).

It's the size; the form factor. The major trend in cameras, especially ILC is smaller.

Sony's FF sold poorly because they had zero appropriate lenses and no video. The AF slow and the processing lacklustre.
Pentax might actually struggle to compete on size in FF, as the SR mechanism scaled up to FF might require larger camera than Canon 6D and Nikon D600, And just like on APS-C , the SR mechanism will make Pentax bodies among the heaviest. FI Canon 6D only weight 15g more than K5 II, and Pentax K500 is ~250g heavier than Canon 100D.

Few lenses, poor video, slow AF, where have I heard that before?
08-26-2013, 12:40 PM   #190
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
Pentax might actually struggle to compete on size in FF, as the SR mechanism scaled up to FF might require larger camera than Canon 6D and Nikon D600, And just like on APS-C , the SR mechanism will make Pentax bodies among the heaviest. FI Canon 6D only weight 15g more than K5 II, and Pentax K500 is ~250g heavier than Canon 100D.

Few lenses, poor video, slow AF, where have I heard that before?
As the owner of a K-x, which until the Canon SL1 was the smaller DSLR, I disagree. Falk Lumo has stated elsewhere on this forum that the SR should not be a factor. Weight might be, but so what? Gained in the body is list in the lenses. And you get SR in all lenses unlike the Nikon 14-24 and 24-70.

Canon is also the polycarb king. They have minimal metal chassis going on. Personally I think Pentax should consider that as well.

And all if this is irrelevant if FF takes over the $1500 price point. In 2-3 years that so where we will be on new units. I suspect the floor will be just under that, maybe $1300 based on the difference in sensor yield. Below that will be APS-C and I suspect the end of m43 (because Olympus is in deep trouble).
08-26-2013, 02:25 PM   #191
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
As the owner of a K-x, which until the Canon SL1 was the smaller DSLR, I disagree. Falk Lumo has stated elsewhere on this forum that the SR should not be a factor. Weight might be, but so what? Gained in the body is list in the lenses. And you get SR in all lenses unlike the Nikon 14-24 and 24-70.
When K-x was the smallest DSLR, Canon and Nikon had no real priority on small size. And yet it was not any big difference in size between K-x and entry level cameras from Canon or Nikon. Today at least Canon seems to want smaller APS-C bodies than before, so it might actually be smart of Pentax making the cameras a bit larger than Canon. Not everybody wants the smallest possible camera, and with a little bigger body the camera can be made more comfortable to use and the design does not need to be "crippled" just to save a few mm on the size.

All I have seen Falk writhing regarding this is how much sensor movement is needed for FF, and my own calculations show the same thing. But I have not seen Falk mention anything on how much space the whole SR mechanism require inside the FF body. According to my calculations the SR mechanism need to be ~90-100mm high for FF. (unless Pentax can redesign it in more ways than just up-scale it to FF). This will be difficult to fit inside a Nkon D600 sized body, so Pentax first FF DSLR might end up the size of D800 and might be a little heavier than D800.

QuoteQuote:
Canon is also the polycarb king. They have minimal metal chassis going on. Personally I think Pentax should consider that as well.
Most parts of the SR mechanism need to be made of metal, so Pentax can't shave off much more weigth that they done on entry level cameras. And pentaprism add more weight than pentamirrors.

QuoteQuote:
And all if this is irrelevant if FF takes over the $1500 price point. In 2-3 years that so where we will be on new units. I suspect the floor will be just under that, maybe $1300 based on the difference in sensor yield. Below that will be APS-C and I suspect the end of m43 (because Olympus is in deep trouble).
But there might still not be any need for Pentax in the lowest range of FF. In the $1000-1300, many Pentax users might prefer a smaller higher specified APS-C over a larger lower specified FF, and they might also prefer higher specified APS-C lenses over lower specified FF lenses.
08-26-2013, 02:53 PM   #192
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
You won't have a "higher specified" APS-C than FF. You'll have a K-5ii clone with an FF sensor. APS-C has no more room to grow because DSLR is a
Mature tech. FF is simply a model above because of sensor size. Last car I looked at buying had the exact same specs between the 4 and 6 cyl. save for fuel economy. You are creating a difference that doesn't exist.
08-26-2013, 03:06 PM   #193
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,429
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
You won't have a "higher specified" APS-C than FF. You'll have a K-5ii clone with an FF sensor. APS-C has no more room to grow because DSLR is a Mature tech.
You are wrong.
08-26-2013, 03:08 PM   #194
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,737
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
You won't have a "higher specified" APS-C than FF. You'll have a K-5ii clone with an FF sensor. APS-C has no more room to grow because DSLR is a
Mature tech. FF is simply a model above because of sensor size. Last car I looked at buying had the exact same specs between the 4 and 6 cyl. save for fuel economy. You are creating a difference that doesn't exist.
Are you saying that Canon 6D is better specified than Canon 7D for all users?

I can find many 4 cyl cars with higher spec than 6 cyl cars. It's just cars created with different purpose. A large heavy 6-cyl SUV might not have as fast acceleration or top speed as a small light sports car with 4-cyl engine. And you won't replace a sports car with a SUV.
08-26-2013, 03:17 PM   #195
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,557
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
You won't have a "higher specified" APS-C than FF. You'll have a K-5ii clone with an FF sensor. APS-C has no more room to grow because DSLR is a
Mature tech. FF is simply a model above because of sensor size. Last car I looked at buying had the exact same specs between the 4 and 6 cyl. save for fuel economy. You are creating a difference that doesn't exist.
Well a specified aps-c camera for use like sports or so would be a good difference. There are advantages in such a smaller camera. If it can do the things that 1Dx and D4 can do but being smaller in size it will find its way into amateurs (sports and wildlife) and as backup for pro's. There is still a good market for 7D and thus for a follower camera (no idea why there isn't a D400).
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, frame, full-frame, lenses, pentax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sony will launch lenses with built-in imaging sensor! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 9 07-19-2013 09:54 AM
PENTAX RICOH IMAGING Hosts Roaring Twenties Themed Launch Event at Landmark NYC Townh Adam Homepage & Official Pentax News 0 06-12-2013 03:00 PM
Pentax lenses at BestBuy.com at pre-hike prices... seventysixersfan Pentax Price Watch 2 05-02-2013 10:04 PM
Black & White Launch OxTron Photo Critique 8 04-05-2012 03:27 AM
February Launch? Billgscott Photographic Industry and Professionals 12 11-10-2011 12:42 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:00 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top