[Kunzite]

Yes, I believe Pentax can outdo those entry level "full frame" cameras (but those are D610 and 6D) . I don't think they should outdo the D810/5DmkIII (or its successor), that would be a bit difficult, and quite expensive.

[Fogel70]

I agree (and should be obvious) - Pentax need to match the same generation cameras (whatever/whenever that would be), not the current one. But... why entry level?
Competition's entry level are made "cheap" in ways Pentax could not match (volume, reusing parts developed for other bodies), or would put off some people (e.g. reusing an APS-C AF). Perhaps a step above entry level would work out better?

Sure but what is that segment called? Is it upper entry level or lower mid range?
I'm pretty sure Ricoh will try to aim below mid range ($3000-4000) where D8x0 and 5D are.

To go for $3000 including kit lens might be doable.

[rawr]

what is that segment called?

This is how Canon shows their segments:


Note: 'Advanced Amateur' bundles APS-C together with FF - and that 'Professional' for Canon only includes one body - the 1Dx.

[Daikokuya]

I am following. I simply disagree with your conclusions.

'Success' is what? Being the industry leader, or number 2 in sales, or number 3, being a loss leader in drawing more people to buy various Pentax branded products, forcing other brands to innovate further to keep their lead, providing honorable product for the brand, or something else?

If you think they need to chew majorly into Canikony's FF market.. then I can see why you'd say what you say. But it seems the negativity has been around the industry for over a decade and yet the industry has managed to survive quite well.. Each company has proven to be more resilient for than many give them credit.

Pentax could enter the FF market if they want to. They don't require massive sales. The words, if true, that you mentioned Ricoh's CEO stating show this.. they don't even worry about massive sales and being 1 or 2. They can release a FF and be 3 or 4 and that is ok. As long as they aren't burning money... that is the revenue from building, producing, and supporting the FF body(ies) is made up in increased lens and other product sales as a result of the FF system, then what does it matter what % of the marketshare they own?

Japanese seem to, at least from this distant chair, respect the old and the group. There seems to be more of a duty almost to keep the old continuing even with the new is superior. Plus there seems to be more of an effort to meet goals vs pure financial gain. You meet your goals (listening to customers, innovating in market in some fashion, providing certain product), you stick to the plan, and all is well. Of course if you continually lose money, all is not well. But the point I'm making is a pure financial or leader standpoint doesn't seem to be the number one driving factor in Japanese business.

Versus Western style which seems to play cuthroat for the most efficient method of making the most amount of money. If you do not meet financial goal X you failed. the end. who cares about the employee, the product, the customer, or anything else beyond pure financial profit? That is general western style.

So perhaps some of this is in analyzing a different culture and mindset with our own? It would be fascinating to hear from someone more familiar with Japanese culture and mindset in corporations.

If you're following, you don't effectively refute my argument. Remember, Ricoh or Pentax isn't doing charity. They're making cameras as business. Why do they have to get into a field where the two giants are dominant? FF's market share is less than 10%, and Canikon is too powerful in that small segment.

The reason why Mr. Miura says that Pentax's aim is to be break-even is that Pentax is losing money. According to him, the loss in Ricoh's camera division was $20 million in the fiscal year 2012. That's why he said Pentax should break even at least. Is there any reason that Pentax is going to get FF out when Pentax is losing money and there looks like no prospect that Pentax's FF sells good and is profitable? FF could make Pentax business much worse.

The K-5 is in the red. I heard it from a Pentax guy. I guess that the K-3 is also in the red. Pentax is much more popular in Japan than other countries, and in that Japan, the K-3, the most advanced APS-C camera at the time of launch, isn't selling well. In any statistics, the K-3 is raked very low in sales, except for the initial stage. Is there any reason that I can believe Pentax's FF is profitable? Remember, the K-5 is losing money. The K-3 is losing money. Why is Pentax's FF suddenly supposed to be profitable?

As I said, Sony, one of the most popular names in business, challenged Canikon's FF with the A900 and the A99, which has resulted in failure so far, excluding the A7 which seems to gain modest success. Sony has failed, and the past products showed miserable performance. Is there any reason to believe that Pentax FF is successful enough to turn around?

Do you know how much it costs to make one lens? It's not $10 or $20. One lens costs around $10 million in some cases. It costs very, very, very much. The current loss of Pentax is $20 million. If Pentax gets 3 or 4 FF lenses out as you said, Pentax needs $30 to $40 million only for lenses. If you add up bodies, the cost increases much more. Just tell me. Is there any plan to cover $30 to $40 million or more along with the loss of $20 million in FF business where Canon and Nikon is very, very, very powerful and even Sony can't compete?

Remember, the entire camera market is shrinking. That's why Nikon is going to the medical business and Sony has aligned with Olympus which has a strong medical division. Sony's intent is not Olympus's mediocre camera but its profitable medical business which has saved Olympus even after the financial fraud.

Again, Pentax isn't making cameras for charity. They're doing business. If you disagree with me, you have to show a reasonable plan to believe that Pentax FF turns out to be profitable enough to cover all the cost.

[Kunzite]

Ricoh Imaging actually is making a profit.

[Daikokuya]

That is possible if the FF from Pentax is 80% the K-3, and remaining 20% is something unique. 645Z follow that same recipe.
So based on that assumption, even in worst case scenario sales of the FF will break even, as other parts of the lineup will share the cost too. Add to this more basic models like the K-50's successors that will inherit lots of K-3's tech, and the FF may turn out to be quit a nice effort for Pentax.

I can't follow your reason. Sorry. As I wrote, it's probable that Pentax's advanced models are all losing money. So, I doubt that FF will break even.

[mee]

If you're following, you don't effectively refute my argument. Remember, Ricoh or Pentax isn't doing charity. They're making cameras as business. Why do they have to get into a field where the two giants are dominant? FF's market share is less than 10%, and Canikon is too powerful in that small segment.

I'm not here to prove or disprove your argument though! I disagree with your bleak/negativistic outlook, however. I never stated Ricoh/Pentax were doing charity. It seems like you are putting words into my mouth?

The reason why Mr. Miura says that Pentax's aim is to be break-even is that Pentax is losing money. According to him, the loss in Ricoh's camera division was $20 million in the fiscal year 2012. That's why he said Pentax should break even at least. Is there any reason that Pentax is going to get FF out when Pentax is losing money and there looks like no prospect that Pentax's FF sells good and is profitable? FF could make Pentax business much worse.

The K-5 is in the red. I heard it from a Pentax guy. I guess that the K-3 is also in the red. Pentax is much more popular in Japan than other countries, and in that Japan, the K-3, the most advanced APS-C camera at the time of launch, isn't selling well. In any statistics, the K-3 is raked very low in sales, except for the initial stage. Is there any reason that I can believe Pentax's FF is profitable? Remember, the K-5 is losing money. The K-3 is losing money. Why is Pentax's FF suddenly supposed to be profitable?

As I said, Sony, one of the most popular names in business, challenged Canikon's FF with the A900 and the A99, which has resulted in failure so far, excluding the A7 which seems to gain modest success. Sony has failed, and the past products showed miserable performance. Is there any reason to believe that Pentax FF is successful enough to turn around?

I would be interested in seeing the articles stating this information! It would be pretty sad if Pentax (as a whole) is losing money. If Sony fails, however, it is for other reasons... one being they attack innovation as a primary concern. But are they not making money off of Sensors/technology sales?

Do you know how much it costs to make one lens? It's not $10 or $20. One lens costs around $10 million in some cases. It costs very, very, very much. The current loss of Pentax is $20 million. If Pentax gets 3 or 4 FF lenses out as you said, Pentax needs $30 to $40 million only for lenses. If you add up bodies, the cost increases much more. Just tell me. Is there any plan to cover $30 to $40 million or more along with the loss of $20 million in FF business where Canon and Nikon is very, very, very powerful and even Sony can't compete?

Remember, the entire camera market is shrinking. That's why Nikon is going to the medical business and Sony has aligned with Olympus which has a strong medical division. Sony's intent is not Olympus's mediocre camera but its profitable medical business which has saved Olympus even after the financial fraud.

Again, Pentax isn't making cameras for charity. They're doing business. If you disagree with me, you have to show a reasonable plan to believe that Pentax FF turns out to be profitable enough to cover all the cost.

You misread what I said.. I didn't say Pentax needs 3 or 4 FF lenses out to launch a digi FF body... I said they would probably be happy being 3rd or 4th in the market. While I suspect they'd love to make inroads and be a 1 or 2, I think they are also reasonable and understand their position.

For the record, I think Pentax only needs maybe 2 new FF lenses out to launch a new digi FF body. They have a hugeee legacy set of lenses out already so I think they only need a new 24-70 and maybe a 70-200. Zooms. Many of the primes are FF-able right now.

Again, I'm well aware Pentax isn't making cameras for charity and I never claimed they were. I did claim, however, that Japanese business models and American/Western business models seem to have some differences in their methodology.

I also said they don't have to make a profitable FF body as long as the FF body spurs more sales of Pentax/Ricoh imaging products as a whole to make up for it. That seems reasonable to any business. You can have a loss leader as long as you make up the sales elsewhere.

Just like a K-5 or a K-3 in itself doesn't have to be profitable. The system, however, as a whole, over time probably does though!

Just my 2 cents worth... we're all armchairing here (you included) so I hope that is kept apparent when we discuss such matters.

[ElJamoquio]

The unit cost should after 2 years have been significantly reduced, to the benefit of Pentax.

But the amount of money a camera company can charge for a camera with a two year old sensor has gone down, to the detriment of pentax.

[Kunzite]

I would be interested in seeing the articles stating this information! It would be pretty sad if Pentax (as a whole) is losing money. If Sony fails, however, it is for other reasons... one being they attack innovation as a primary concern. But are they not making money off of Sensors/technology sales?

There is no Pentax (as a whole). There is Ricoh Imaging - mostly what was "Pentax", but now with different ownership.
From the latest financial report:
"P12 Other
＜Other＞
- Sales of camera and financial business have expanded, and we have achieved
profitability from a loss of the previous year.
- We have returned to profit in all business segments and geographic areas."
Daikokuya's information is not up to date.

L.E. Another bit of interesting information from Ricoh's reports: 4,300 million Yen were invested in order to "Increase production of digital cameras ,etc.". The market might decrease, however Ricoh Imaging is going up!

[Na Horuk]

Note: 'Advanced Amateur' bundles APS-C together with FF - and that 'Professional' for Canon only includes one body - the 1Dx.

Wow, 5D MkIII is advanced amateur? I think it is a very popular camera with pro photographers, seen lots of good photos and even videos taken with it.
I think that graph is merely trying to tease people into buying more cameras. Someone with a shiny 5D mkIII would suddenly feel inadequate being only "advanced amateur" and would buy the 1DX just to legitimize and prove his worth. Honestly, I always thought if Pentax makes an FF it would compete against the 5D MkIII. Much more than against the 1Dx or the Nikon flagships (since these are so much more specialized)

[Winder]

The reason why Mr. Miura says that Pentax's aim is to be break-even is that Pentax is losing money. According to him, the loss in Ricoh's camera division was $20 million in the fiscal year 2012. That's why he said Pentax should break even at least. Is there any reason that Pentax is going to get FF out when Pentax is losing money and there looks like no prospect that Pentax's FF sells good and is profitable? FF could make Pentax business much worse.

I don't know how companies in Japan practice accounting, but in the USA I have no intention of showing a profit for my business. For tax reasons I always break even. The second point is that R&D costs can be amortized over a 10 year period. To use Fuji as an example, they spend several years developing X-mount before ever producing a product. The R&D costs will be amortized out over years and anyone looking at the bottom line will see a loss, but that loss is not an accurate picture of the health or success of the product line.

If Ricoh is investing a lot of money into R&D for K-mount then they will show a loss over the short term. We know Pentax is developing a FF 70-200 F/2.8 because they show it on their roadmap.

Do you know how much it costs to make one lens? It's not $10 or $20. One lens costs around $10 million in some cases. It costs very, very, very much. The current loss of Pentax is $20 million. If Pentax gets 3 or 4 FF lenses out as you said, Pentax needs $30 to $40 million only for lenses.

Please post some supporting link for this. Where are you getting your numbers from. Do you know how many DA* 55mm lenses Pentax would have to sell to recover $10 million in R&D cost after they paid for manufacturing and marketing?

Pentax is going to implement as much of the K-3 technology as they can into the K-1 just as they have with the 645z. The build quality of the K-3 is actually better than the Canon 5DIII or Nikon D800, so I would expect that Pentax will produce a K-1 with the same level of construction and performance. Pentax has to design a new quiet shutter, SR for the larger sensor, and they need to invest in lenses (faster, quieter motors).

[rawr]

But the amount of money a camera company can charge for a camera with a two year old sensor has gone down, to the detriment of pentax.

DSLR prices aren't instantly adjusted by the market due to the age of the sensor alone. If the sensor is a good one, and the rest of the package performs well (AF, lenses etc, general reliability, regular firmware updates), the age of the sensor doesn't seem to be the crucial deciding factor in the price of a new camera.

Just look at Nikon (eg D610, D810) . Prices for either of those 'new' models haven't plummeted, even though their sensors are pretty much unchanged after two years. And the K-5II hit the market at about the same price as the K-5 obtained when it hit the market two years earlier, with the same sensor.

What using an older (but still more than decent) FF sensor may mean is that Pentax may have an opportunity to 'buy low but sell high', at least for a while. No need to 'buy low, sell low' immediately.

---------- Post added 2014-06-30 at 02:34 AM ----------

... I think that graph is merely trying to tease people into buying more cameras. Someone with a shiny 5D mkIII would suddenly feel inadequate being only "advanced amateur" and would buy the 1DX just to legitimize and prove his worth.

Welcome to marketing

[ElJamoquio]

We know Pentax is developing a FF 70-200 F/2.8

We absolutely do NOT know it's an F/2.8. Given Pentax's recent statements (slow apertures are good enough) I will be suspicious it's a F/4 until I see it.

---------- Post added 06-29-14 at 11:58 AM ----------

DSLR prices aren't instantly adjusted by the market due to the age of the sensor alone. If the sensor is a good one, and the rest of the package performs well (AF, lenses etc, general reliability, regular firmware updates), the age of the sensor doesn't seem to be the crucial deciding factor in the price of a new camera.

Just look at Nikon (eg D610, D810) . Prices for either of those 'new' models haven't plummeted, even though their sensors are pretty much unchanged after two years. And the K-5II hit the market at about the same price as the K-5 obtained when it hit the market two years earlier, with the same sensor.

Admittedly, the NIkon D600 was 'only' ~$2200 at launch, and now the D610 is 'only' ~$1900. The D600 is now $1600 or so. I don't recall any real improvements from the D600 to the D610 though, only a different shutter.

I suspect that a $200-$300 price reduction is greater than the sensor cost reduction in that time. So I don't think Pentax has gained anything by waiting, even in this, the most-optimistic scenario.

[Winder]

We absolutely do NOT know it's an F/2.8. Given Pentax's recent statements (slow apertures are good enough) I will be suspicious it's a F/4 until I see it.

---------- Post added 06-29-14 at 11:58 AM ----------




Admittedly, the NIkon D600 was 'only' ~$2200 at launch, and now the D610 is 'only' ~$1900. The D600 is now $1600 or so. I don't recall any real improvements from the D600 to the D610 though, only a different shutter.

I suspect that a $200-$300 price reduction is greater than the sensor cost reduction in that time. So I don't think Pentax has gained anything by waiting, even in this, the most-optimistic scenario.

Pentax patent for a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens | Photo Rumors Anything is possible, but the recent patent is for the 70-200mm F/2.8.

[ElJamoquio]

Fair enough, I'd forgotten about that patent. I think it's relevant but not a given.