[Aristophanes]

It's not the part Pentax buy that add most of the cost (even though Pentax will have to pay more for part than Nikon, as Pentax will buy in much lower volume). It's the parts where Pentax need to spend money and time on R&D that add most cost. FI a new FF version of the SR might have a larger R&D budget than a whole new APS-C DSLR. And as FF sells in much lower volume the R&D cost add much more on FF.

How do you expect Pentax to produce FF DSLR cheaper than Nikon when Pentax has to pay more for parts, and R&D cost will be higher on each sold camera?

Pentaxhas done exactly the same in 35mm film cameras for decades and i APS-C DSLR's.

Nikon is over-priced.

There are many new high end Smartphone coming all the time, and now days there are many high price Android devices. Many of the costing more than iPhone. But I don't think this has much to do with Pentax.

The overall price for smartphones is declining. high-end from 5 years ago will be middle value next year. Consumer electronics veer towards commodity.

Pentax has no cachet to produce an elite brand product.

Which probably lead to lower margins, and in the end, higher prices.

Actually, prices drop. When demand falls, prices decline closer to cost. To pay off the Sony FF fab they can either shutter it part-time or run the same volume at lower margins. Sony's bleeding red. They'll run it to the ground to pay it off.

This is exactly what happened with APS-C.

I don't see baseline costs increasing. I see them declining, especially as energy crunch costs wane. Same for rare earths. Aptina, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung, Canon, and Fuji can all jump into to compete further driving down costs. Which one of them will be the Hyundai of sensors?

That is probably only interting for high volume sales, but for low volume niche products it might not be possible.

It's not the bodies that are the problem for volume niche. It's the lenses.

A value product sells more bodies...because it is value. Therefore you'll sell more lenses.

For Canon and Nikon value = the used market. Frankly, I think that is Pentax's worst problem.

FF don't replace APS-C for most users, and they only get FF if it's a major advantage for the. The price of upgrading to FF will be too expensive for most users, but that is mostly because it's too expensive too replace APS-C glass with FF glass.
Having a APS-C system you only need to upgrade the camera, but upgrading to FF you might have to replace all your glass too.

That's my point. Are you going to upgrade all your glass with the only 3 Pentax zooms to justify your $2,600 FF purchase of a body which will be outdated in 3 years, or will you simply buy Canikon and have all the glass you will need for a decade already on the market?

To get over that hurdle Pentax has to offer value. What will entice the Pentax buyer to their FF model with a substantially smaller system overall to draw from?

Price will play a huge factor here as people who spend less on the body have more to spend on glass. Pentax should play to the TCO (total cost of ownership). Pentax simply cannot produce enough f/2.8 FF glass for the hobby elite.

The irony here for bodies is you still get to keep all your goodies like video, and WR. This is mostly about the optical side. There's some cost pressures coming as manufacturers try to network integrate their camera systems. I personally think this has been the silent stalker of recent sale declines.

FF is not for the vast majority of users, but only for a small group of users.
It probably take 5-10 more years before FF will be close to being able to replace APS-C.

Sub-$1,000, yes. APS-C will still dominate in volume. Consumers will get tremendous value from APS-C for a decade. You'll get a K-5ii equivalent with kit lens for US$999.

But above US$1,200 that's the issue. Pentax almost has no choice but to get their $1,500 camera body market into FF before Nikon and Canon do. That's a turf Pentax has always played in and which is essential to long-term glass sales. The D600 dropping in price even $200 is a Pentax nightmare both for FF and for APS-C.

The real challenge is to build a stable of compact, affordable, FF zoom lenses complemented by primes.

[Winder]

Just a comment: 2 amateurs (not even casual earners) in my local photographic society have the 1DX, plus appropriate lenses. But I also know a professional using the K-5IIs.

Amateurs do buy a lot of very expensive equipment, and I am glad that they do. Just having a fancy camera isn't enough to compete with a professional. It takes a considerable amount of time to develop the right connections, be at the right places, meet with people and market the business. I assume most amateurs have day jobs and limited time to actually invest in working in the field of photography. Just about everyone will tell you that if you spend 20% of you time actually taking pictures as a professional photographer, then you are doing good. 80% of the time is spent on the business side, so it really doesn't matter how expensive your camera if you don't have the time to invest.

If the weekend warrior with a 1DX is doing a better job landing paying gigs than a full-time professional, then the professional needs to find a different career field. How many hours per week can a weekend warrior dedicate to building a paying photography business? Maybe 8-16 hours per week? The vast majority of those weekend warriors spend most of their time on the internet talking about gear and only a small fraction of their time actually using the camera or building a business.

I have never thought weekend warriors were a threat to my business. They come and go. I have seen some really great work by many of them and several of them had great creative vision, but they don't have the time to invest to be competition. If they have day jobs that allow them to buy 1DX level equipment, then they probably don't want to quit their day job and spend 10 years building a business with a revenue stream that would get them back to that income level.

[Barry Pearson]

Amateurs do buy a lot of very expensive equipment, and I am glad that they do. Just having a fancy camera isn't enough to compete with a professional. It takes a considerable amount of time to develop the right connections, be at the right places, meet with people and market the business. I assume most amateurs have day jobs and limited time to actually invest in working in the field of photography. Just about everyone will tell you that if you spend 20% of you time actually taking pictures as a professional photographer, then you are doing good. 80% of the time is spent on the business side, so it really doesn't matter how expensive your camera if you don't have the time to invest.

If the weekend warrior with a 1DX is doing a better job landing paying gigs than a full-time professional, then the professional needs to find a different career field. How many hours per week can a weekend warrior dedicate to building a paying photography business? Maybe 8-16 hours per week? The vast majority of those weekend warriors spend most of their time on the internet talking about gear and only a small fraction of their time actually using the camera or building a business.

I have never thought weekend warriors were a threat to my business. They come and go. I have seen some really great work by many of them and several of them had great creative vision, but they don't have the time to invest to be competition. If they have day jobs that allow them to buy 1DX level equipment, then they probably don't want to quit their day job and spend 10 years building a business with a revenue stream that would get them back to that income level.

I won't argue with that. Personally, I don't take paid work even when asked to, because (to me) being a professional is far more than "just" taking the photos. It is (or should be, which I suspect includes you) a complete package of knowledge in the details of the topic concerned (which photos are needed at a wedding); the ability to handle the unexpected (back-up equipment; skill with difficult people); follow-up services; perhaps insurance; etc.

But, like a number of the people at my local photographic society, I am retired. I am not a "weekend warrior". If I did shoot a wedding I could probably afford to spend more time on it than a professional could afford to. Hobbyists like me can take things very seriously indeed! (I've been on several workshops and training course over the last 18 months to improve my skills).

However, there is another reason I don't do paid-for work: it stops being a hobby, and starts becoming a chore. I'm building up my Q-mount system so that, among other things, I don't take a professional-quality camera to social events and can just enjoy being a point-&-shooter like everyone else!

[Kunzite]

That's a solid price.

All the K-5 features with an FF. Sure. There's not much more a DSLR can do to improve the interface and tech. It's a very mature system.

I'd like a better tracking AF but don't require 12 FPS or a 1/250 flash sync. Those are apparently very expensive to achieve. Dual-SD slots? Waste of space. Better to have wi-fi. The AF system has been the Pentax Achilles' Heel for over a decade now and should be reworked to be on par with Nikon for all DSLR offerings; not FF exclusive.

I think prosumers will see value in getting the best sensor without MP overkill. In fact the market is ripe for an emphasis on a smaller form factor FF if possible even if that means dropping some current "pro" features like a top LCD, and a smaller battery. Canon is doing similar with the SL1 on APS-C and that has caught a lot of attention. Pentax has always been known for compactness. This is about the only area left in the SLR format to differentiate and Pentax can either lead or follow.

That's not crippled. That's just moving your customers from one model to the next efficiently.

APS-C will soon be a sub-$1,000 camera regardless. So that will leave FF as the only option to maintain revenues. I've always maintained for 4 years now that Pentax will have an FF camera, but it will solely depend on a sub-$2,000 price point

It's not a solid price, it's an impossible price. And even at this impossible price, you wouldn't buy.

All K5 features, including the old PRIME? And the old SAFOX? And the flash issues? Wait, Pentax must fix all these, but for free! Yeah, sure.

12fps is pro territory, nobody is asking for that (it's your strawman). The D800 can do 6, and IMO having at least 5 is OK.
But using the Canon's cheap junk as an example when talking about what would be the most expensive K-mount camera... do you work for Canon?

Going further with cutting corners than just reusing a mid-level APS-C body and AF system is crippling. We're talking about $450 in price reductions, with a higher R&D, manufacturing and distribution cost; how else can they achieve that? By skimping on quality, then features.

[Fogel70]

Going further with cutting corners than just reusing a mid-level APS-C body and AF system is crippling. We're talking about $450 in price reductions, with a higher R&D, manufacturing and distribution cost; how else can they achieve that? By skimping on quality, then features.

If Pentax aim for $1500 on FF, they probably end up with an FF version of K-01 without SR.

[Aristophanes]

The flash, SAFOX, and Prime issues need rescuing anyways just to stay competitive in APS-C. Old news, new motivation.

It's the $1500 price point that is under assault from FF. It's not defensible with the crop format.

[Barry Pearson]

12fps is pro territory, nobody is asking for that (it's your strawman). The D800 can do 6, and IMO having at least 5 is OK.
But using the Canon's cheap junk as an example when talking about what would be the most expensive K-mount camera... do you work for Canon?

I find 7 fps inadequate in my K-5IIs. I would like 10 fps at least, preferably more such as 12 fps or more. In the meantime, the vast majority of my photos are shot at 7 fps because it is all I have.

I am a hobbyist photographer. I have no intention of trying to make money from it. I just happen to pursue, as part of my hobby, photographing such things as airshows, motor sports, birds in flight, other types of action, etc.

[Kunzite]

Then, be prepared to pay for it. And that means you'll have to go for the EOS 1DX, the only Canikon which can (barely) reach 12fps.

[hangman43]

I find 7 fps inadequate in my K-5IIs. I would like 10 fps at least, preferably more such as 12 fps or more. In the meantime, the vast majority of my photos are shot at 7 fps because it is all I have.

I am a hobbyist photographer. I have no intention of trying to make money from it. I just happen to pursue, as part of my hobby, photographing such things as airshows, motor sports, birds in flight, other types of action, etc.

To get 12fps or more your choices are going to be Nikon D4, Canon 1DX or switch to Sony I do not see it ever being a Pentax DSLR sounds like to me you are just wanting a camera that you can spray and pray. What you mentioned as your reasons for needing 12fps are not valid or necessary here is a link to one of the guys I follow on 500px he uses a 7D which has 8fps and all his work is exceptional
500px / Robert King / Photos
The problem with Pentax is not frames per second it is a AF issue when tracking.

[Barry Pearson]

Then, be prepared to pay for it. And that means you'll have to go for the EOS 1DX, the only Canikon which can (barely) reach 12fps.

I was refuting your statement "12fps is pro territory, nobody is asking for that (it's your strawman)". That statement is incorrect.

Of course it will cost a lot of money. But that doesn't mean it "is pro territory" and it doesn't mean "nobody is asking for that". Even some hobbyists are asking for it, just as some hobbyists are already using the Canon IDX.

[Barry Pearson]

To get 12fps or more your choices are going to be Nikon D4, Canon 1DX or switch to Sony I do not see it ever being a Pentax DSLR sounds like to me you are just wanting a camera that you can spray and pray. What you mentioned as your reasons for needing 12fps are not valid or necessary here is a link to one of the guys I follow on 500px he uses a 7D which has 8fps and all his work is exceptional
500px / Robert King / Photos
The problem with Pentax is not frames per second it is a AF issue when tracking.

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us.

My opinion is different. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[Fogel70]

10+ FPS performance is one of the reason why there is still a market for a $1500 APS-C cameras, and Canon 7D II and Nikon D400 might be in that territory.

[hangman43]

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us.

My opinion is different. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

It is not a opinion it is fact 12fps plus is not necessary to shoot motor sports or BIF the link I posted proves it there are many examples to prove my so called opinion but none to prove that you have to have 12fps to do a great job at any of your reasons for wanting it.

[Barry Pearson]

It is not a opinion it is fact 12fps plus is not necessary to shoot motor sports or BIF the link I posted proves it there are many examples to prove my so called opinion but none to prove that you have to have 12fps to do a great job at any of your reasons for wanting it.

I don't need to prove anything!

I am simply stating:
that I want more than 7 fps;
that I am willing to pay for it if Ricoh/Pentax supply it;
that I am not the only one who would like more fps, and
one of the great things about photography is that what matters is the final result, not how we got there.

There are lots of things that it can be "proved" that we don't need, because someone else has managed without it. I've seen "proofs" that lenses longer than 300mm are not needed for bird photography, and that people can hand-hold a 3-kilogram lens for long periods to shoot birds in flight; some people can do those things.

Those aren't proofs, anymore than there is a proof that we can all run 100 metres in 10 seconds because someone has done so. We are all different.

If Pentax supply lots more than 7 fps, I hope that it is an option so that people who can manage with less are not inconvenienced. I don't want to impose my preferences on everyone else, and I hope they won't impose their preferences on me.

[prime.partisan]

Remember - back then the owner of the brand was Asahi Optical Co. - and lenses were their main business. Now all camera companies are basically electronics companies, so selling the camera is the main business.

I guess back them people keep the body and update lenses? Now the situation is reversed, bodies are updated very couple years or so.