[hangman43]

Someone needs to start a poll and see how many on here would actually buy a stripped down FF that is less of a camera than a D600 or 6D I for one would not I would rather pay $1500.00 for a K-5 replacement APS-c than buying a FF just to have a FF.

[Aristophanes]

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

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.

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?

Actually, it's not $14,000 per year. My bad.

It's $14/hour.

Photographers : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

I've seen Canadian government stats saying similar or worse. Professional photography is being eaten by amateurs who now have access to markets for casual print sales because of that good old interweb invention thingy.

I strongly doubt the data is understated. In fact all the data notes are the opposite using inference that things are actually worse because they are not seeing tax write-downs of equipment. You'd think the guy buying a $8,000 FF kit is going to get his 20% depreciation/year back from Uncle Sam or Canuck...but that data is not there. The same guy who buys a Lexus SUV is now the D800 buyer. Not the pro. Selling cameras has been up; selling images made from cameras is way, way, way down. Hiring a pro photographer is also way down.

Many an old school pro photographer readily admits (a la Scott Kelby) that the real money is in selling lessons to prosumers and not selling your prints. The playing field has levelled.

There is widespread economic consensus that photography as a separate and self-sustaining vocation is being made obsolete by the ubiquity of technical systems in the hands of amateurs with sufficient hobby time. Just look at the near complete implosion of the stock photo market where everyone from Instagram to Flickr now monetizes and licenses amateur content without the intermediary stock photo editor. The only winner has been Getty Images who bought out pretty much all the competition. The market is now a fraction of what it used to be decades ago as CGI images make up an increasing amount of material.

Similarly, GoPro Hero has almost destroyed the professional video market for all those Warren Miller wannabes, who are now paying GoPro instead of paying the next Warren Miller. Everyone can now be a Warren Miller (and some are now far better).

And Fujifilm:

FUJIFILM Holdings | Segment Information

Note how Imaging (cameras) is operating at a net loss and is actually a very small revenue generator (Fujifilm earlier had written down or off all of its film stock manufacturing to the point where it's not even a rounding error and they no longer make stock projection or capture reels so if you read earlier notes, that's not the reason for the operating losses). Fujifilm's camera division is a vanity business. They existed to make money on their film sales. Their industrial/commercial/institutional (ICI) sales sales are vastly greater and are subsidizing their secularly money-losing camera biz. It's right there in the financials.

Don't buy all the hobbyist chatter about how great the Fuji X-Pro system is. It actually sells very few units and is nowhere near making up for the cratering P&S market. And Fuji did make ILC cameras. They sold the the S5 which was a Nikon mount using a Fuji APS-C sensor. Fuji's essentially taken its 6xX series of medium format RF's and rolled them into their X-series. Fuji also used to blah blah blah that consumers didn't need SLR's anymore because of products like the Fuji S9200 and S5200 bridge cameras which Fuji predicted would obsolete ILC's. They were wrong and now are betting the horse on the X-series driving down, down, down the price grid trying to desperately capture market share. Half the X-series is just another mirrorless (with bigger lenses) and the other half is a very expensive hybrid VF system. If Fuji (and Olympus and Pentax) did not have the camera-obsessed Japanese home market, they'd be out of biz.

The long run for Fuji is poor. They will have an Imaging divisions maybe 20% as large in revenues as before if you char the losses, which seem to be ongoing. Yet they still have to make their own sensors and do all their own proprietary R&D. Those costs will have to slow considerably so if they haven't yet got their market share up to Canikon levels, they'll continue to bleed. How long will that go on?

[Aristophanes]

Someone needs to start a poll and see how many on here would actually buy a stripped down FF that is less of a camera than a D600 or 6D I for one would not I would rather pay $1500.00 for a K-5 replacement APS-c than buying a FF just to have a FF.

That's the issue.

The argument by Fogel70 is that a Pentax FF will really only sell to the loyal.

So make it better than a D600 and charge in between the D600 and D800.

But the Pentaxians already in the fold buy at most $1,500 camera bodies and lay out nowhere near the same for lenses compared to the 14-24's and 200-400 zooms that make FF systems (wide and long).

So why would Pentax tell the faithful that they need to spend $1,000 more than what they spent last cycle?

And have a very limited lens selection to start with.

That's how Pentax loses its base. Overnight. Because for $500 less you can get a D600 with a much greater lens variety (and WR to boot). Or $500 more a D800 with much greater lens variety.

And better flash system.

And tethering.

And LR lens profiles.

And so on.

And the same with Canon.

In order for Pentax to turn their top purchasers from K-5 buyers into FF buyers they need to be near the same price point for the body and put out some very good prosumer zooms with value.

Instead of a 14-24/2.8 they do a f/4 for 50% less but with awesome flare control, cheaper filters, built-in SR, and considerably lighter.

And their FF body should reflect that pared down feature ethos.

The FF DSLR market is really devoid of value right now and it's not the bodies that are the problem; it's the big glass.

[hangman43]

That's the issue.

The argument by Fogel70 is that a Pentax FF will really only sell to the loyal.

So make it better than a D600 and charge in between the D600 and D800.

But the Pentaxians already in the fold buy at most $1,500 camera bodies and lay out nowhere near the same for lenses compared to the 14-24's and 200-400 zooms that make FF systems (wide and long).

So why would Pentax tell the faithful that they need to spend $1,000 more than what they spent last cycle?

And have a very limited lens selection to start with.

That's how Pentax loses its base. Overnight. Because for $500 less you can get a D600 with a much greater lens variety (and WR to boot). Or $500 more a D800 with much greater lens variety.

And better flash system.

And tethering.

And LR lens profiles.

And so on.

And the same with Canon.

In order for Pentax to turn their top purchasers from K-5 buyers into FF buyers they need to be near the same price point for the body and put out some very good prosumer zooms with value.

Instead of a 14-24/2.8 they do a f/4 for 50% less but with awesome flare control, cheaper filters, built-in SR, and considerably lighter.

And their FF body should reflect that pared down feature ethos.

The FF DSLR market is really devoid of value right now and it's not the bodies that are the problem; it's the big glass.

I would not spend over $1500 for an APS-c but I would not hesitate spending $2500 for a FF and that is with the lens base where it is now I have no need for anything longer than 200mm I would use existing 70-200 till a new one came out if it was a better lens. I still do not see your logic of putting off all the existing Pentax by making a entry level FF that is below the competition.

[hidden_au]

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.

I agree that Pentax needs to offer an upgrade path to their existing high end APS customers. If the new camera is nothing more than a K 5 but with a full frame sensor, would that be enough of an upgrade?

To go higher end than that I think Pentax would really be struggling to attract buyers. People looking for cameras in that higher price range would mostly be pros or enthusiasts. The pros need lenses, professional support services, a whole range of flash lights etc... so they would most likely not go for it. Enthusiasts would find it hard to go past the price of the D600 and the lense range on offer at both Canon and Nikon camps.

That leaves the loyal Pentax users wanting to go full frame. But is that a big enough market to introduce a expensive camera into?

[bossa]

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

I wasn't thinking of a MF K-01 but more a MF NEX with adapters or even a MF GXR modular.

PS: I suppose that type of thing won't matter much anyway as the new NEX FF is coming out next month and will effectively cut-off that avenue to FF for Pentax users. The NEX won't allow AF with FA lenses but at least people can use their Pentax FF glass in the way they were intended.

[hidden_au]

Call Fuji. Tell them they screwed up by rolling out a premium camera with only 3 lenses and no real support. Or maybe we should call Apple and tell them that there is no way the iPhone can compete against a giant like RIM.

This is an excellent point. We must not forget that Pentax have not been afraid to enter niche markets eg 645d or to try something a bit differnt and quirky eg q series.

[redrockcoulee]

The 200-400 4.0 is a nice lens to use but I would not want to pay for it. I used it with a D200 two years ago at Yellowstone/Grand Teton. We also have borrowed the 14-24. These are lenses that many on this forum would love to own but would most likely complain of the cost

I have no idea what Pentax would have to produce to be sucessful or even what sucess would mean to Ricoh. From what I have read the 645D has been a sucess. Whatever Pentax does produce will not be a sucess if measured by its ratings in top sales as it will not compete with either Nikon or Canon due to their lion's share of the market. Meeting Ricoh's targets will be their way of measuring but we will not know what it is or if they ever meet it.

[bossa]

I have the 14-24 (it's worth every cent) but I doubt I'd buy the 200-400 (discounting cost) because of the horrific OOF highlights. They are among the weirdest looking things I've ever seen.

[Aristophanes]

To go higher end than that I think Pentax would really be struggling to attract buyers. People looking for cameras in that higher price range would mostly be pros or enthusiasts. The pros need lenses, professional support services, a whole range of flash lights etc... so they would most likely not go for it. Enthusiasts would find it hard to go past the price of the D600 and the lense range on offer at both Canon and Nikon camps.

Precisely.

Higher than a D600 and Pentax hasn't the glass and accessories. You have a body getting close to the D800 (with what sensor? 24MP? 36?) but likely with a lesser AF system (Nikon and Canon have a major leap on Pentax). Close to the sun and you get burned. All people will notice is the gaps in the lens roadmap and a weak flash system. People won't pay more than a D600/6D for gaps. They pay more they want the whole shebang.

But come in under the radar with a 24MP sensor in a slightly larger K-5 retaining all the core features and hopefully a modestly upgraded AF and video, and you have a contender if the price is right. You save nothing by cutting things like video, but you save a fortune by not having to accommodate a second SD slot for example. Dual slots are form factor and battery killers where Wi-fi is going to eliminate the need anyway for a very large amount of photos taken with any camera. Why bother? Go as small as possible and give your current customers FF where they last bought a K-5.

Lots of people like brand hopping and Pentax with value offers an easier path to do just that.

This buys time for Pentax to update their flash system and firmware. And glass. Especially glass.

Also, I don't think the D800 sensor is available outside Sony and Nikon. The volumes are too limited to support a third player off that chip. I suspect Sony limits sales to keep margins high and to take on the real issue which is Canon. When you see the money going into these CMOS fabs you realize it's all about volume sales at elevated price points. They pay these efforts off by locking in sales way ahead of time. It's not a shop around market. Hopefully someone will compete with Sony besides Canon, but that's still unlikely at this juncture, not with the way Sony's sensors wipe the floor with ISO. As with the GR, Pentax is married to Sony for the near horizon. An FF NEX might open the door to a commodity approach to FF. We're not there yet.

[Winder]

Actually, it's not $14,000 per year. My bad.

It's $14/hour.

Photographers : Occupational Outlook Handbook : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Did you not read what I posted about BLS?

The BLS only counts employed professional photographers. They do not count self-employed photographers. They don't count the largest segment of the profession. The BLS numbers are significantly understated.

A survey of professional self-employed photographers from June 2006 (Photo District News) showed editorial photographers averaged $60,000 per year and Consumer (wedding) togs at $65,000. These numbers are in line with established professionals that I know, and I know of one who makes a good bit more than that in my market. Obviously the part-timer and the tog with less that 7 or so years is not in this group.
Best Business Practices for Photographers, Second Edition - John Henry III Harrington - Google Books

Please read footnote (1) at the bottom of the BLS data.

(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.

To repeat.... The BLS does not collect data on self-employed workers. The BLS does not collect data on most professional photographers.

[Winder]

Don't buy all the hobbyist chatter about how great the Fuji X-Pro system is. It actually sells very few units and is nowhere near making up for the cratering P&S market. And Fuji did make ILC cameras. They sold the the S5 which was a Nikon mount using a Fuji APS-C sensor.

The Fuji S5 has been out of production for 5 years. Fuji has not made an interchangeable lens camera for 5 years. Their camera division includes the P&S segment which has been losing money. My local pro-shop started carrying the Fuji X-mount system and from what I am told sales have been good. Strong enough that they have added display space.

You say "Fuji actually sells very few units". OK.... How many? Show me numbers. I'm pretty sure Zeiss would not be designing lenses for the X-mount if what you said was even remotely true. I would bet Zeiss has a much better idea of the market. Maybe you should give Zeiss a call and warn them that they are making a huge mistake by investing in the X-mount system.

Everything you say is contradicted by what is happening in the market and by what 3rd party suppliers are doing in the market.

How many x-mount bodies has Fuji sold?

[Aristophanes]

They actually do track SE photographers. It's on the Outlook tab. The specifically mention the difference between "salaried jobs" and SE.

My Canadian stats show similar and do track SE:

Photographers - Service Canada

Pay is absolutely dismal. Most people cannot survive on a photographers wages. It's a second or "hobby job" for most.

Sears shut down the world's largest photo studio network and the pay for photojournalists has either gone to zero (Chicago) or been substantially reduced (38% where I live).

While pro photographers are an important driver of product development for the industry, image sales are way, way down (actually mentioned in the Getty consolidation). That means there are far fewer earning income from taking a photo. Period. The prosumer has access to the same tools and produces competing IQ. Pro quality image taking is well within reach of so many more people because of digital. And photography itself is declining in segments (journalism, product photography) due to video, CGI, and amateur content supply.

It's not going to disappear, but it is a struggling, very low pay vocation dominated by part-timers who are simply trying to sell photos to pay for equipment; this is known as a self-supporting hobby in economics.

Pentax cannot count on a pro segment buying its equipment (645D excepted and that's maybe 1,500 units/year...maybe). It's the hobbyist who drives gross revenues where Pentax has to sell.

Bluntly put, the # of Pentaxians willing to pay more for their next camera is a tiny fraction of our already small market share. If the last flagship was US$1,599 then the FF flagship needs to be there as well. Pentax doesn't have the lenses or accessories to go above the D600/6D category.

Gaps in the lens roadmap, flash system, macro, tethering, connectivity, accessories, software, superior AF, third party add-ons, etc. all make it less likely someone will pay MORE for a Pentax than they already do. If Pentax cannot offer the full FF feature set in a SYSTEM camera, why design and price a product there, especially when sales are stalling?

A high-priced, weak system will go nowhere, selling too few to current Pentaxians and able to lure zero new entrants or brand hoppers.

[Aristophanes]

You say "Fuji actually sells very few units". OK.... How many? Show me numbers. I'm pretty sure Zeiss would not be designing lenses for the X-mount if what you said was even remotely true. I would bet Zeiss has a much better idea of the market. Maybe you should give Zeiss a call and warn them that they are making a huge mistake by investing in the X-mount system.

Zeiss operates a tiny, boutique optical shop. They are a design service and do not drive sales. Much too small to make much of an impact on the camera market.

Fuji's imaging division has been losing money and has declining revenues:

FUJIFILM Holdings | Sales Trends by Products

Fuji is correct that people will abandon the P&S for the smartphone and buy a "better" camera, but...

CIPA shows mirrorless down and DSLR holding steady:

And April Makes Four | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan

Camera shipments continue to fall:

Camera shipments continue to fall: Digital Photography Review

Fuji once hinted officially at an X-Pro 2 now is aiming low:

Fuji aims for the low end mirrorless market. No X-PRO 2 this year. | Mirrorless Rumors

Because it's all about market share (especially when you have to fund your own sensor fab).

But Fujifilm sales data on mirrorless is almost non-existent:

Top 10 best selling mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras in Japan | Photo Rumors

But as we'v all heard recently mirrorless sales...Fuji's bread and butter now...are in decline. I blame low value.

And Fuji has by far the most expensive non-Leica mirrorless platform. Rather than update the abysmal AF on the X-Pro Fuji is, instead, focusing almost exclusively on the lower end.

Overall you're actually making my point. Fuji's had to survive by moving down the price ladder with the XE-1 and actually delayed higher-end glass and models. They've gone from trying to compete against the DSLR with the X-Pro to dogging it out with low-end mirrorless to keep gross revenues high amid substantial losses from P&S. Now they are apparently prepping an XA-1 with a cheaper sensor (rumoured to be Sony)!

That's the exact same argument I am making for a Pentax FF. Unless you have the complete system competing against those who do relegates you to tiny sales and losses. Pentax cannot compete above the D600 price point. Their original flagship APS-C customers cannot afford another $1,000 (most of them) and those that could would think twice about entering into FF with less than what Canikon offers in glass and accessories. That leaves Pentax with the option of offering a value product. The door is starting to open for that in FF as the sensor move slowly towards being more of a commodity.

Don't get me wrong. I like Fuji. They survived and Kodak did not. Smart, nimble, driven, well run company. But the X-series has moved from being a hybrid VF system to being just another mirrorless ILC. Somehow I don't think it was supposed to go this way.

[Winder]

They actually do track SE photographers. It's on the Outlook tab. The specifically mention the difference between "salaried jobs" and SE.

No. They don't track self-employed. They only mention that 63% of people working in the field are self-employed. Their data only accounts for the 37% of the photographers who are on staff and classified as employees. If you work at Olin Mills Portrait Studios you are counted in those numbers. If you work for a news paper you are counted in those numbers. If you are a self-employed wedding photographer you are not counted in the numbers.

BLS is only tracking employment. They only track employees. They don't track self-employed.