[cali92rs]

So a D600 equivalent using the same sensor (likely) with WR and in pretty colours is going to justify a $500 premium?

The D600 has WR...so there goes that differentiation.

[normhead]

The lenses I'd like for a Pentax FF at launch would be, the DA 35 2.4, the FA 50 1.8, The Sigma 70 macro 2.8 and the Tamron 90 macro 2.8. Hey, I already own all those. The one lens I might buy would be a Sigma 70-200 2.8 or a WR re-release of the Pentax 80-200 2.8.

If they were going to compete with a D800 I'd want a pro-grade 14-24, 24 to 70 and 70-200. But, I haven't bought a D800, and I wouldn't buy a Pentax for the same set up. It would just be too expensive. But a 28 MP ff body... I might go for that. If they release a coupel 1.4 lenses, say an 85 for portraits and a 135 short tele also sub ƒ2, I might go for those as well. It's not that I want a D800, I just want few things that go with what I have... and Nikon can't offer me that. (Cause, I like what I have.)

[Pål Jensen]

How about a $1649 FF with one SD slot, WR, no top-LCD, articulating rear LCD, slightly updated SAFOX, wi-fi/USB/HDMI, all in a package about the size of the K-5 (larger prism)? Use the same 24MP Sony sensor on a second batch run at commodity prices (Sony will love you for amortizing their fab).

That's how Pentax gets some traction...if they can get the lenses right. At that price point they can do away with pro-level glass a $800 more expensive body would demand..

Pentax have no other option than make a reasonable high-end FF camera initially and price it accordingly. Their initial target market must be the Pentax users sitting on Pentax FF lenses and their APS users wanting to change or add FF.
A dumbed down FF model compared to their top APS camera would make most potential customers angy.
If you sell cheap you get customers that come to you because you are cheap. Pentax need to make their FF solution attractive by other means. A D600 clone will have no hope to attract any FF buyers outside the Pentax camp. Which ever way you cut it theres little chance that any Pentax FF camera will sell in volumes. Hence, an "entry level" FF model is not realistic.

[Kunzite]

It's refreshing to see a post with realistic optimism. Much like my own thinking.

Buy that man a beer!

Winder, should you pass through Bucharest, a beer is waiting for you!

[bossa]

I can see Pentax making a mirrorless 645D II and adding a FF crop mode to it. That's about the only way I can see them taking over a "pro" segment of the FF market. The MkII would have to be 60-80MP though or it'd be pointless.

PS: That camera would have to cost no more than a D4 though.. perhaps less. A mirrorless MF might allow them to compete on price and offer an opening to MF for users with FF glass whereas the current unit wouldn't.

[Kunzite]

However, a medium format camera and a "pro" small format camera are different kinds of beasts; first prioritizing image quality above everything else, the other having the brute performance and versatility.
The solution for this dilemma is, IMO, not to go for the "pro" small format segment at all (for now). Either extreme is bad, "pro" and "cheap".

[twitch]

A K01-like version of the 645D would be almost as dumb as Pentax producing an APS-H camera.

[normhead]

A K01-like version of the 645D would be almost as dumb as Pentax producing an APS-H camera.

lets see , the K-01 started at $749 , 40% cheaper than a newly eleased k-5 and ended at 299, 20% the price of a K-5. So if we take the $10,000 price tag of a 645 D, it could start at $6000, and end up at $2000, given the facts that my K-01 recently gave me as good pictures as my K-5 on a recent trip and I already have 2 645 A lenses, I'd be all over that like white on rice.

[Kunzite]

But would it make sense for Ricoh? After all, they're a business - not a charity.

[normhead]

But would it make sense for Ricoh? After all, they're a business - not a charity.

I kind of feel like they gave me my k-01, Why stop there? Tis better to give than to receive.

[Aristophanes]

In other words, a Pentax camera should be over 20% cheaper than the competition in order for you to consider thinking about it (but, would you buy it?). In your opinion, the answer is a camera designed to be obsolete from day 1.

Obsolete?

Cameras are ALL obsolete from day 1 as an electronics apparatus. They decline precipitously in value regardless because a new model is just around the corner. You get maybe 4-5 years maximum before the tech curve leaves you behind.

THAT is a game Pentax cannot play. They don't have the market to develop cutting edge AF and hybrid sensors like Nikon and Canon respectively. You cannot do that at 5% market share.

Look at Olympus. Slugging it out almost alone in m43 and ding a slow death of red ink.

No, what you do is take the tried and true and stop adding the Nikon premium. In mature markets market share is kept and added by marginal value.

Since Pentax cannot offer the lens and flash and accessory systems of the big boys they need to compete on other terms.

They ALWAYS have. The whole MX and LX systems were targeted at "pros" who were not pro. And not being Nikon they were less costly. Pentax and Olympus and Minolta made their markets this way and it's still the same market overall.

Pros are a declining workforce in photography and, journalistic, archival, fine arts, and yes, even wedding. Relying on those diminishing sub-sectors to drive sales is foolish.

Most people here have little idea just how few cameras above $2,000 are actually sold. The D600 has almost killed the idea of any APS-C above $1,500 and that's only going to accelerate. Pentax can either lead the charge towards a value FF where it has always been, or try and sell into a D800 level and go head to head with every gun Canikon has because there is no way they will cede an inch of that lucrative market. Nikon if threatened will buy the same Sony sensors in volumes dwarfing Pentax and undercut Pentax's prices so much they wind up bleeding like Olympus.

So Pentax goes where Nikon isn't. Hard to do with a DSLR K-mount, but a trimmed down camera within a known form factor using the same sensors as Nikon is an option. The value there makes up for the glass Pentax cannot make.

These are what sell the above-D600 crowd:

Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens2163 B&H Photo

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-400mm f/4G ED VR II Lens2187 B&H Photo

People buy D800's to shot this glass.

Not the other way around.

[Kunzite]

Tis better to give than to receive.

Are you a boxer?

Aristophanes, you're forgetting about the middle ground and go for the extremes, again. Pentax doesn't need to do all that to build a camera somewhere between the D600 and the D800.
And please answer, would you buy that trimmed down camera?

P.S. Cameras (and not only then) are obsolete only after more advanced products in the same range/class are on the market. What's in the labs is irrelevant for us.

[Winder]

And that's 1% of all DSLR sales.

Professional photography is a tiny part of the whole market.

Please link to some data or source that can support this claim.

The US$ average earnings for the occupation of "photographer" is $14,000 per year.

Again please link to the data to support this statistic.

If you are pulling ANY data from the government or any of the sources that use the government data you have a huge problem in footnote 1.
(1) Estimates for detailed occupations do not sum to the totals because the totals include occupations not shown separately. Estimates do not include self-employed workers.
Professional self-employed photographers are NOT included in that data. Salary data only reflects employees like the kids taking your picture at Disney Land on your summer vacation. Most professional photographers are self-employed and NOT counted in data collected by the Bureau of Labor & Statisics.

The actual data for self-employed photographers is very, very hard to come by and seriously understated. I have absolutely NO reason to show a profit for my business or myself for tax reasons. As far as the IRS is concerned I don't make a dime.

Fuji is bleeding money from its camera division. Their sales are not actually all that good, even in core market Japan. Their market share has hardly budged.

Show me a link to Fuji's sales date and market share. Its hard to believe that a company that didn't make interchangeable lens cameras for 5 years has seen not growth. Starting from ZERO and they have seen no growth? How is that possible?

[tclausen]

When Ricoh launches a FF Pentax DSLR, I would like to have them provide a nice package/kit price on the FA 31, FA 43, and FA 77 Limited lenses--a Pentax classic triumverate, so to say. These seem to work very well on my MZ-S full-frame camera. Of course, a new 17-300 mm f 2.8 would also be a nice addition along with a new 50mm f 1.2.

"Seem to work well on..." -- that's an understatement, isn't it?

The FA Ltd were /built/ for the MZ-S and thus the 24mm x 36mm format

[Pål Jensen]

They ALWAYS have. The whole MX and LX systems were targeted at "pros" who were not pro. And not being Nikon they were less costly. Pentax and Olympus and Minolta made their markets this way and it's still the same market overall.

Back in the 70's a Nikon typically costed 25% more than similar cameras from other manufacturers. However, the LX costed the same as the F3 and later in its life it was much more expensive costing as much as a Leica...