[Aristophanes]

The problem with Pentax is not frames per second it is a AF issue when tracking.

Yup. Low light is very good on my K-30, so much so it is as good or better than a D7100. And I've sat in a camera shop with the manager and tried to compare.

But Nikon's predictive tracking is much superior. A real weak link for Pentax on APS-C and a needed correction for FF.

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.

So far the D400 is a year overdue and is still rumourware. We'll have to see if enough of a market for an APS-C FPS gunner is still viable in numbers large enough to dedicate resources.

[Kunzite]

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

The statement is correct.
12fps (with AF, of course) is pro territory and afaik only the 1DX can do it. And it was bring up by Aristophanes, to make it appear there are only 2 choices: way below the cheapest competitor, or a pro monster camera.

[Winder]

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!

I know a lot of weekend warriors who have great vision and really know the craft, but like you they don't want to be in business. I actually have used a couple of them as second shooters. The fact that they are hobbyists means that they are not a real threat to me or my business. They are not competition. They don't have the desire or the contacts to turn it into a business.

People who are losing business to people who aren't even in business need to take a good look at their business plan.... or lack there of.

[Aristophanes]

The statement is correct.
12fps (with AF, of course) is pro territory and afaik only the 1DX can do it. And it was bring up by Aristophanes, to make it appear there are only 2 choices: way below the cheapest competitor, or a pro monster camera.

My point is that the D800 or even a slight notch below equivalent is a product line that is f/2.8 territory from 16mm to 200mm in FF. To get there Pentax must be:

1) Moving a very large number of existing Pentaxians from the $5,000 system kit by requiring to pay double their last flagship investment.

2) Or stealing customers from the competitors, while having only a handful of lenses to do so, plus inadequate flash, predictive and tracking AF, etc.

I doubt enough Pentaxians from the current 5% market share will make the leap to make it economically viable for corporate HQ. That's why we haven't seen it done yet. The cost/user is prohibitive for any meaningful ROI.

Luring other customers away is usually done with either features or price. Well, the DSLR is a pretty mature format. Not a lot of tech advances to come by and one can make a pretty solid argument that Pentax is still playing catch-up. So stealing customers with a me-too camera body and a noticeably inferior 'system' for a system camera is going to sway none of the broader FF base.

That leaves price. To get there you have to advise your current users that their FF will come in at the past flagship price (or close enough to be tantalizing). It won't be featurewise what the other guy has except the sensor will be the same, just in a value package. Not crippled, but K-5ii, hopefully with the long awaited better AF the entire Pentax line has been needing for 5 years now.

This will also have the advantage of luring customers for whom even the D600 is too costly. It will also let Pentax differentiate perhaps a bit on form factor going for compactness at the expense of some 'pro' features. But through it all the IQ from the sensor will be the absolute priority.

Because if Pentax doesn't do it, the other guys will. They will march in FF at a sub-$2,000 price point in the next 24-36 months and take Pentax's last flagship customers anyway.

The flawed groupthink on FF on this forum is overlooking the reality that Pentax has survived this far precisely because so many of its DSLR's were value propositions in the face of Canon and Nikon. the bulk of Pentax consumers are here because Pentax is a value brand. The K200D blew away the competition at $200 less. The K-x trounced Canon's ISO in the T2i and was cheaper than anything Nikon had. The K-30 has a 100% pentaprism and WR at a price point the same or even lower than the D5200. Go and look at DP Reviews about Pentax and the constant thread is that Pentax = value.

---

Last edited by Aristophanes; 08-23-2013 at 08:24 PM.

[bossa]

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.



Wrong analogy.

FF is not a first gen product. Pentax would be the 5th entrant after Leica, Sony, Canon, and Nikon. Pentax will use the exact same sensor as Sony and Nikon almost certainly.

This is an established product category. To borrow an automobile analogy, Pentax is more like Hyundai who moved into SUV's and mini-vans later than the competition with lower priced models but well-featured that got near equivalent reviews. Using that basis they've chewed away market share, which is the Pentax problem.

Take smartphones. Apple's iPhone (and Nokia tried this as well) went in high-end in an emerging sector. But now it is established all the talk is about lower end products at the expense of margins. The utility is no longer worth the same premium from 5 years ago. The first Android phones specifically advertised lower prices than the iPhone, prompting Apple to drop prices.

The camera biz right now is saturated and volumes are declining.

So for late entrants to a mature sector it makes sense to come in lower. That is how Pentax has survived as a camera company.

Do the math:

A flagship APS-C Pentax system:
K-5ii + 12-24 + 16-60 + 50-135 is ~$5,000 with a flash + tax

The D800 is designed around this concept:

D800 + 14-24 + 24-70 + 70-200 all f/2.8.

That's close to $10,000 with a flash + tax.

So in a stumbling market, how many flagship, loyal, Pentax customers are going to spend 2x what they last spent? Even if you drop the 14-24 and got to the 16-35 option you're only shaving off maybe $400. People buy D800's to shoot that f/2.8 awesomeness. Saving $400 on an in-between Pentax FF model is nowhere near enough wiggle room to make a difference.

The vast majority of households cannot make that leap even if they wanted to. Photography is primarily a disposable income dependent hobby market.

So the Pentax dilemma is even worse because it would only shift a minority % of its current base to FF while still struggling to maintain revenues from it bread and butter APS-C, and can therefore only grow by taking customers from other brands. Brands with better flash systems and more lenses and nearby service centres, and lower cost D600's, used D800/700's, etc.

So go back to the title of this thread and ask yourself which lenses do we need for FF and then design and price a body around that. Tackling it from the objective of the body first is backwards.

In OZ we pay 10% GST (goods and services tax). Here is an example D800 E system - later I'll add to this with a K-5 "equivalent" system.

D800E body = $3850 (1st one, 2nd one was $100 less)
grip = $450
battery = $100
card = $100
--------------------------
= $4500

14-24 = $2299
70-200 = $2950
24-70 ( I don't own one) = $2100
-------------------------------------------
=$ 7,349


Total = $11,849

[Kunzite]

Aristophanes, I understand your point; but I disagree with it.
Specifically, I disagree with the leap from "not being able to perfectly match a D800 and a full range pf f/2.8 lenses" to "making the cheapest - by $450 - is the only way". That's not exactly sound logic
By the way, what do you think of the 560mm? It's more expensive than most f/2.8 zooms, and than a D800. Maybe you should:
- admit there is possible to make a camera in between the D800 and the D600
- rethink how much Pentaxians would be willing to spend (and it doesn't always be a full kit of f/2.8 zooms)

[Fogel70]

The flawed groupthink on FF on this forum is overlooking the reality that Pentax has survived this far precisely because so many of its DSLR's were value propositions in the face of Canon and Nikon. the bulk of Pentax consumers are here because Pentax is a value brand. The K200D blew away the competition at $200 less. The K-x trounced Canon's ISO in the T2i and was cheaper than anything Nikon had. The K-30 has a 100% pentaprism and WR at a price point the same or even lower than the D5200. Go and look at DP Reviews about Pentax and the constant thread is that Pentax = value.

If Pentax would have much higher value for all users, then Pentax would gain market share fast over time, and by now have the largest market share. Pentax just try to do things differently, looking for users that want something different other manufactures don't do.

Pentax is better value for us using Pentax (doh), but it might not necessary be so for other users. Those users might look for thing Pentax are not good at, or don't even offer (And it is many more important stuff than FF that Pentax is missing out on).

K200D was really no more value than the competition, and the only unique feature it had was weather sealing, but as Pentax had no cheap sealed lenses at this time, the sealing on the body was not a big advantage for most users. On other specifications it was much less value than the competition. It had no LV, slow AF and slow continuous shooting with small buffer.

The same with K-x, it had better IQ than competition, but missed out on other things, like no superimposed AF points in VF, low specified video, and not as sophisticated AF with noisy kit lens AF. You also had to spend money on batteries and charger so the price was not much lower than competition.

K-30 is a great value for those looking for a cheap weather sealed body, but users looking for a camera with good video specification will not want it, and once again the kit lens on Pentax is of lower value because of high AF noise. Competition just offering much more sophisticated kit lenses if WR is not a requirement.

In the general public Pentax is probably viewed as a brand that sell lower specified cameras at lower price, and is a few generation behind on most basic features on the cameras. But canikon keep on selling old generation cameras at lower price, so value is not major advantage for Pentax.

---

Last edited by Fogel70; 08-24-2013 at 02:17 AM.

[Aristophanes]

By the way, what do you think of the 560mm? It's more expensive than most f/2.8 zooms, and than a D800. Maybe you should:
- admit there is possible to make a camera in between the D800 and the D600
- rethink how much Pentaxians would be willing to spend (and it doesn't always be a full kit of f/2.8 zooms)

Pentax could make an in between, but why? What features could Pentax add better than a D600 (or more obviously, a D600 MkII).

And which sensor? Pentax really cannot use the 24MP sensor and charge more than what Nikon is doing.

The more you charge, the less customers you have. It matters not if they are Pentaxians.

Pentax is better value for us using Pentax (doh), but it might not necessary be so for other users.

That's why I referenced DP Review. Whenever Pentax went up to Nikon levels they got slammed:

Though the body-only MSRP of the K-5 II was only $100 cheaper than its predecessor at launch, the current online price is closer to $800 body-only, which puts it in the high-value category. We were concerned about the K-5's high debut price of $1750, but that's certainly less of a concern now.

First, FF has killed the above $1,500 price point for Pentax and most APS-C cameras.

The D600 is selling for US$1,691 already.

Nikon 25488 - D600 - Nikon SLR - 24.3 Megapixel Digital Camera Body

Pentax now earns much less revenue from early adopters because they cannot get flagships in at the same price as before. This is good for consumers looking for value, but terrible for Pentax's revenues. They now have to manage the same manufacturing and distribution systems with less cash flow. $500 more from every camera above a certain price point is going to Nikon.

Nikon is going for value and has the lenses to sell to anyone. You want Pentax to price well above that and offer less system in return.

If Pentax would have much higher value for all users, then Pentax would gain market share fast over time, and by now have the largest market share. Pentax just try to do things differently, looking for users that want something different other manufactures don't do.

Pentax is better value for us using Pentax (doh), but it might not necessary be so for other users. Those users might look for thing Pentax are not good at, or don't even offer (And it is many more important stuff than FF that Pentax is missing out on).

And what exactly makes Pentax different?

Where are the advantages for these "other users"?

In APS-C it was WR (stupidly dumped for a time at the mid-range), now pretty colours, great ergonomics, but that's subjective. The competition has all that, too.

Compact, quality primes for APS-C has been their best feature in the DA Ltd's. But an FF body is going to be largish so a lot of that advantage is mostly lost (made worse when the FF NEX comes out).

Zoom lenses still sell systems and that's where the problems lie. A high-end body is going to see demand for f/2.8 glass or people will go Canikon to the D800/6D. If Pentax pus out a high-end body but can only muster f/4 and some decent variables than they have no better system than a D600 which will be substantially cheaper as noted above.

So Pentax loses by staking the middle ground. Pentax just does not have a features edge or system (lens, flash) to buy into to price above the D600. It's just not there.

[cali92rs]

Aristophanes, I understand your point; but I disagree with it.
Specifically, I disagree with the leap from "not being able to perfectly match a D800 and a full range pf f/2.8 lenses" to "making the cheapest - by $450 - is the only way". That's not exactly sound logic
By the way, what do you think of the 560mm? It's more expensive than most f/2.8 zooms, and than a D800. Maybe you should:
- admit there is possible to make a camera in between the D800 and the D600
- rethink how much Pentaxians would be willing to spend (and it doesn't always be a full kit of f/2.8 zooms)

Your point that because the 560mm is so expensive, pentaxians would be willing to buy an expensive camera is off. Around here I don't think I have read more than 2 or 3 people that have bought it. I know the sample size is small but I don't think anyone could argue that lens has been a big seller.

[Barry Pearson]

The statement is correct.
12fps (with AF, of course) is pro territory and afaik only the 1DX can do it. And it was bring up by Aristophanes, to make it appear there are only 2 choices: way below the cheapest competitor, or a pro monster camera.

Still incorrect! The quote was "nobody is asking for that". But I am asking for that! And I don't believe I am the only one.

Please don't dismiss people like myself as "nobodies". The fact that it is so hard to provide it doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask for it. Perhaps then one day we will get it.

[Kunzite]

Pentax could make an in between, but why? What features could Pentax add better than a D600 (or more obviously, a D600 MkII).

And which sensor? Pentax really cannot use the 24MP sensor and charge more than what Nikon is doing.

The more you charge, the less customers you have. It matters not if they are Pentaxians.

What features could Nikon add better than a D600? Wait, they have several upper level cameras so they found an answer.

Speculations about the sensor are premature, as we don't know all the possible choices.

You're oversimplifying the price issue and no, crippling a product to meet a certain price point would not necessarily bring in more sales (and profit) than a somewhat more expensive product.

Your point that because the 560mm is so expensive, pentaxians would be willing to buy an expensive camera is off. Around here I don't think I have read more than 2 or 3 people that have bought it. I know the sample size is small but I don't think anyone could argue that lens has been a big seller.

No, my point is that Pentax did not shy away from such an expensive product - so why would they, if talking about a camera costing 1/3 of the price?
Pentax has bigger plans than crippled products made to meet random price points (by people who aren't buying anyway!). And the 560, while another kind of product, much more expensive and much lower volume, should serve as a lesson: many were expecting for a dramatically lower price, setting unrealistic expectations. The harsh reality bit hard: Pentax had no intention of making that kind of cheap product.

[cali92rs]

No, my point is that Pentax did not shy away from such an expensive product - so why would they, if talking about a camera costing 1/3 of the price?
Pentax has bigger plans than crippled products made to meet random price points (by people who aren't buying anyway!). And the 560, while another kind of product, much more expensive and much lower volume, should serve as a lesson: many were expecting for a dramatically lower price, setting unrealistic expectations. The harsh reality bit hard: Pentax had no intention of making that kind of cheap product.

Ok, thanks for clarification and I agree.
By the way, even negelcting the 560mm, none of the DA* lenses are budget priced.

[Kunzite]

Still incorrect! The quote was "nobody is asking for that". But I am asking for that! And I don't believe I am the only one.

Please don't dismiss people like myself as "nobodies". The fact that it is so hard to provide it doesn't mean that we shouldn't ask for it. Perhaps then one day we will get it.

Are you prepared to buy a EOS 1DX level camera, at a EOS 1DX-level price? Just saying "I want this and that" is not enough.
But if you are, then I will correct my statement: Barry is asking for 12fps, and I'm afraid he's asking in vain because Pentax cannot compete yet at that level.

However, the discussion was upper-limited to D800 level ans you asking for 12fps (and maybe even being able to pay for it) is out of context.

[Kunzite]

Ok, thanks for clarification and I agree.
By the way, even negelcting the 560mm, none of the DA* lenses are budget priced.

Indeed, one more reason to reject the idea that their most expensive K-mount camera should be more than "as cheap as possible" - $450 cheaper than the competition.
If the APS-C has expensive DA* lenses, the FF cannot be limited to inexpensive stuff.

[Fogel70]

And what exactly makes Pentax different?

Where are the advantages for these "other users"?

In APS-C it was WR (stupidly dumped for a time at the mid-range), now pretty colours, great ergonomics, but that's subjective. The competition has all that, too.

Compact, quality primes for APS-C has been their best feature in the DA Ltd's. But an FF body is going to be largish so a lot of that advantage is mostly lost (made worse when the FF NEX comes out).

At the moment Pentax use large 100% OVF in price range not other manufactures do, and the same for dual wheel control and WR. Pentax also specialize in APS-C lenses and offering lenses no other manufacturer have.

Canon seems to specialize on video functionallity, like AF in video articulating screen silent AF on lenses. Nikon also seems to do like this.

Today most Pentax DSLR is in the middle or upper range on price in every segment they are present.
In entry level APS-C canikon offer cameras for $300, which is a price range Pentax can't reach with K500.
In middle range APS-C canikon has cheaper offerings than Pentax (maybe K30 can compete with this a few month before it is sold out?).
Pentax K5 II(s) in in the price range between Canon 60D and 7D.

I think Pentax want to do the same in FF segment too.

Zoom lenses still sell systems and that's where the problems lie. A high-end body is going to see demand for f/2.8 glass or people will go Canikon to the D800/6D. If Pentax pus out a high-end body but can only muster f/4 and some decent variables than they have no better system than a D600 which will be substantially cheaper as noted above.

So Pentax loses by staking the middle ground. Pentax just does not have a features edge or system (lens, flash) to buy into to price above the D600. It's just not there.

i'm not sure there are that many users that see much benefit it upgrading from APS-C with f/2.8 glass to FF with f/4 glass. And if they have to get a FF camera with lower specification than the APs-C camera, then the group of users wanting this upgrade is probably rather small. Especially since upgrading both camera and lenses to FF might cost more than twice as much as only upgrading the APS-C camera.