[monochrome]

Landscape photog... This is the best camera.
Sports photog ... You're nuts. FPS is dismal on that thing.
Street photog ... Both of you are crazy. Big, bulky cameras suck and people freak out over them.
Frugal photog ... You've got to be kidding. This camera has the best bang for your buck. It's the best.
Artistic photog ... None of those inspire me to go out and shoot. This is the best camera.
Gearhead photog ... All those cameras suck. This camera has the highest specs and most features.

Conclusion:

1. 91% of the market is Sports Photog and 6% of the market is Street Photog - or
2. 30% of the market is rational and 70% of the market is something else

[Uluru]

Some user population was advocating, very persistently, for an FF camera that will enable them to use old film lenses, including M42 mount lenses. It appeared that even a very simple camera should be fine for them, so they then proposed a retro-70's look of the MX film camera for it, and similar.

A very much simple Leica analogy of a digital FF DSLR. That is why old users were frustrated, as in their opinion
• that camera should be simple to make
• it should be much cheaper than a state of the art FF camera others were making
• it won't directly compete with anything FF from other manufacturers, thus in their opinion it won't endanger Pentax

As far as I can see, that is how users have observed the situation. To them it was a low risk, relatively easy project to do, and they never understood why Pentax never answered, never committed.

But we don't know the story from the manufacturer's perspective. Whether Pentax had no guts to do it even when they (theoretically) could, or it was a purely financial reason, we'll perhaps never know exactly. However, from what I have observed from the official interviews and tech development, it seems that even Pentax employees were polarised about the subject, and it was surely a hot topic in their lives, even without the added pressure from the angry birds outside.

FF project surely needed more than we can imagine from this side of the fence. But if considering how the digital imaging industry works, that it first develops technologies and breakthrough progress at smaller sensor sizes and then scales them up, I understand why they have focused on crop sensor size and maximised its potential, as it enabled them to develop certain image quality before the tech goes up to FF size (if ever), and still sell enough of cameras at more and more competitive prices to help sustain their existence.

With a sole focus on APS-C, Pentax would sell at least enough of cameras to help sustain their existence. With a sole focus on FF, Pentax would sell less and less cameras.

Sensor tech, from the economical standpoint, was not there at all, only recently it appears to be perhaps at a glimpse of it. But for someone to make a heathy new FF system (!), no, it is not even remotely there. To achieve required demand for different size sensors that will enable scaling up in the first place, even Sony started licensing their sensor technologies, to gain enough capital for further development and required economy of production, which eventuates in FF sensor tech. The economy is tough. In other words, to make even lenses-less A7 cameras, or merely a hint of a possible system that may come one day, Sony (the manufacturer who gets sensors at best possible deals and at a cost price) first needed to sign up deals with Toshiba, Aptina and many others to secure enough moolah.

The economy of scale is so severe and margins so ever decreasing in digital photography industry — which every fool entered in early 2000s, even General Electrics — that by now, the FF route would have certainly killed Pentax.

Pentax needed not only the economy of scale, but also a serious restructure of manufacturing processes to be able to make cameras at a certain cost, and at the same time seek for alternative avenues of work. That is a very Japanese approach to understanding things and live life, which likes of Thom Hogan — who asks himself "why all these small camera manufacturers don't simply shut down if they can't make big profits, like we Americans would do" — cannot comprehend.

[Kunzite]

"Leica analogy" and "much cheaper"? That's so wrong I wonder how anyone could possibly expect that; but getting angry about it...

[Uluru]

"Leica analogy" and "much cheaper"? That's so wrong I wonder how anyone could possibly expect that; but getting angry about it...

It is startling to think how same those people imagine life to function, detached from any grounds of reality.
Unfortunately, it is the same mindset that is trying to drive the entire industry into an abyss. Or better to say, into a paradise — if there were any justice, they indeed all deserve that all cameras and lenses are sold at an actual cost and good compensation for human labour price, which are Leica's prices more or less so. If the average 1/1.7" compact is priced $1000, APS-C system camera at $4000 and FF system camera at $7000, we'd have a much happier and healthier economy, less junk produced and better photographers overall. They'd at least have a better chance to learn to enjoy the hobby, and focus on subjects and the exploration of light, instead of chimping in between systems not knowing what they are doing at all.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 01-17-2014 at 07:27 PM.

[jogiba]

Only people who have D800s but don't have 645Ds say that. No one who owns a 645D and has compared a decent number of images says that. Imagine Resources still has examples on line of detail the 645D resolves that an D800 or A7r, don't. So I guess it comes down to, do you want the better system, or do you want the most economic system. I make the same types of arguments for APS-c and FF and people stomp all over me. Yet FF advocates take a free pass on the 645D. We have FF partisans, magnifying FFs virtues, trying to dismiss the virtues of other systems. There's no other way to look at it.

Image Resources D800E full test image


36mp A7r vs 40mp 645D on Image Resources

A7r full 7360 x 4912 image

645D full 7264 x 5440 image

[jsherman999]

36mp A7r vs 40mp 645D on Image Resources

$12,000 (with lens factored in) difference?

Actually look pretty close, more detail in the yellow fabric with the A7r shot, but that could be a focal plane difference.



.

[Rondec]

$12,000 (with lens factored in) difference?

Actually look pretty close, more detail in the yellow fabric with the A7r shot, but that could be a focal plane difference.



.

12000 difference? The 645D and 25mm (most expensive lens for 645) together cost 12,000. Certainly at most, there would be a 10,000 difference, depending on what lens you put on your A7.

[Parry]

12000 difference? The 645D and 25mm (most expensive lens for 645) together cost 12,000. Certainly at most, there would be a 10,000 difference, depending on what lens you put on your A7.

It shouldn't matter to you. I've seen your Flickr page and with your post-processing skills you could do the same with an old Polaroid.

Some people just don't need the fancy gear.

[jsherman999]

12000 difference? The 645D and 25mm (most expensive lens for 645) together cost 12,000. Certainly at most, there would be a 10,000 difference, depending on what lens you put on your A7.

My mistake, $10000 difference in price for some pixel peeping delta in IQ.

[jogiba]

12000 difference? The 645D and 25mm (most expensive lens for 645) together cost 12,000. Certainly at most, there would be a 10,000 difference, depending on what lens you put on your A7.

The 645D came out in 2010 for $10,000 for body only so after several years it dropped 30% just like other cameras from 2010 but it's still much too costly for 99.99% of the people on this forum. The 25mm 645D wide angle is still $5,000 and that also is much too costly.

[Parry]

The 645D came out in 2010 for $10,000 for body only so after several years it dropped 30% just like other cameras from 2010 but it's still much too costly for 99.99% of the people on this forum. The 25mm 645D wide angle is still $5,000 and that also is much too costly.

Thanks for linking those test charts.

I'm looking at the D800E compared to A7r and 645D and I have to say the D800E is winning.

Is there one of these charts for the K-3?


EDIT: I know much of this comes down to lenses.

[ElJamoquio]

12000 difference? The 645D and 25mm (most expensive lens for 645) together cost 12,000. Certainly at most, there would be a 10,000 difference, depending on what lens you put on your A7.

I like more than one lens.


To me, Imaging Resources is a moot point, though... their findings and methodology don't seem to stack up well with reality.

[jogiba]

Thanks for linking those test charts.

I'm looking at the D800E compared to A7r and 645D and I have to say the D800E is winning.

Is there one of these charts for the K-3?


EDIT: I know much of this comes down to lenses.

The D800E is at 50iso and the A7r is at 100 iso.

A7r @ 50iso

K-3 vs A7r

[Parry]

I like more than one lens.


To me, Imaging Resources is a moot point, though... their findings and methodology don't seem to stack up well with reality.

Ohhhh . . . don't go there. I like more than one lens too. It became a problem.

I don't use most of them and it's cost a fortune. Newbie ignorance was my problem.

[tuco]

The D800E is at 50iso and the A7r is at 100 iso.

A7r @ 50iso

I think ISO 50 is an extended ISO in which case it probably would be better off at ISO 100 on the D800E.