[ElJamoquio]

The fact they would both be '24MP' is irrelevant.

The advantages of FF over APS-C have been discussed to death in this forum, as well as everywhere else.

Those advantages, alone, are enough to justify an additional $800-900 for many (myself included). In fact, if anything, I think that a 24MP FF Pentax for $2000 would be a bargain, and more likely to damage sales of the K-3 than suffer itself.

And of course, the K-3 won't suffer much because it's primary sales have already been made. Clever strategy methinks!!!!

D610 - D7100 = $700.

I think Pentax could charge a $800-900 premium all day long, but Nikon doesn't, FYI.

---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 06:29 AM ----------

No, I think they don't have such problems because Ricoh Imaging has been very proud in asserting that their 24 MP APS-C DSLR can beat other brand's FF DSLR at 24 MP.
I am writing here about a marketing (even moral) principle which neither of the competitors ever used in their own advertising (Nikon clearly advertises superiority of their FX line). However, Ricoh Imaging did use the APS-C K-3 proposition to, inadvertently, denigrate other brand's FF value proposition. And very profusely.

So if they will not eat their own words, or act without a principle and contradict themselves, they need to bring something extra to the table.

---------- Post added 06-12-2014 at 07:37 PM ----------



No, I think it is very relevant and I do not agree with Asahiman's assertion. Nor yours. Already explained in my previous answer above.
The FF cannot be just a 35mm sensor inside the K-3 body. It must be more than that to justify all the K-3 and 645Z advertising babble, in which quite derogatory adjectives and means of measure against the FF are used to explain the validity of the Pentax choices in camera design.

The improvement in sharpness (overrated of course) between a FF with a consumer lens and an APS-C with a $1200 lens is about the same as the APS-C with the $1200 lens and an APS-C with a $100 lens.

Not exactly the same thing (below) but FF with 24MP is distinctly better than APS-C with 24MP and FF lenses are much cheaper as well.



---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 06:34 AM ----------

high-end APS-C

There hasn't been a >$1500 APS-C for the past four years.

What is 'high-end'?

[FlickPhotos]

Would they be able to sell/market a 24mp FF right next to a 24mp APSC for $1000 less? To you and I, we know the difference (and can make the choice based on our photographic needs). To the layman, they may not. Many people (general consumers) still only see the Mp count. All that being said, would Ricoh even be marketing the FF to the unknowing consumer masses. My guess is no. What is your thoughts on this?

[ElJamoquio]

. Why? Excellent low-light capabilities in one case

Canon has the worst low-light full-frames in the industry. Pentax will do much better.

---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 06:37 AM ----------

Would they be able to sell/market a 24mp FF right next to a 24mp APSC for $1000 less? To you and I, we know the difference (and can make the choice based on our photographic needs). To the layman, they may not. Many people (general consumers) still only see the Mp count. All that being said, would Ricoh even be marketing the FF to the unknowing consumer masses. My guess is no. What is your thoughts on this?

I'm still waiting to see Ricoh market anything to anybody!!!

[Winder]

D610 - D7100 = $700.

I think Pentax could charge a $800-900 premium all day long, but Nikon doesn't, FYI.

That would depend on the build quality and features of the K-1. The D610 is a pretty average camera. There is a lot more to pricing that just the sensor.

[mecrox]

Canon has the worst low-light full-frames in the industry. Pentax will do much better.

---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 06:37 AM ----------



I'm still waiting to see Ricoh market anything to anybody!!!

That is open to dispute in the case of the 6D, surely? But, yes very much, Pentax should do much better. That's why I mentioned it, one of their strengths.

Well, here in Europe, it's all about Ricoh now in terms of what one finds online, and Ricoh is always logo'd in the printed ads I've seen. There is more marketing now in the UK than was the case during the Hoya years.

[Winder]

Same here. They just gave more direct, quick control over AF and AE modes, and I miss those controls every time I use the K-3.

I note that they kept the 654Z metering controls in the same location as the K-7/K-5/645D, so it can be done even if the advanced metering system of the K-3 is to be used in any FF.

Yes. I used the K-7 & K-5 so much that it became second nature. I didn't think the change would be that noticeable on the K-3, but it has been a pain. I have to take my camera down and look at the LCD every time I make a change.

[mecrox]

What is 'high-end'?

On APS-C, K3 or D7100, quality lenses like the DA and DA* Limiteds - in my view anyway. Or much of Fuji's line up. I'm looking at the quality of the kit, not at its price though these things are still very costly for the vast majority of all camera-buyers. The K3 strikes me as a high-end camera at any rate, for its segment. In terms of price, I'd imagine the economics would say that if you cannot offset a ceiling on prices and margins by going for volume sales, then you need to look at going upmarket. A move by Ricoh into FF would hardly be a surprise if they've decided that they prefer smaller volumes and higher margins over having to invest in big new factories to do higher volumes with smaller margins. Who knows anyway.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 06-12-2014 at 07:09 AM.

[ElJamoquio]

That would depend on the build quality and features of the K-1. The D610 is a pretty average camera. There is a lot more to pricing that just the sensor.

Sure. I don't know about the D7100 (never used one) but the build quality of the D7000 seems pretty comparable to the D600 to me.

In terms of features the D600 only goes to 1/4000 shutter speed. Don't know what else it's missing.

---------- Post added 06-12-14 at 07:33 AM ----------

That is open to dispute in the case of the 6D, surely?

Looks like the 6D is about a half a stop worse than the D600. That is better than I thought but still not surely open to dispute in my opinion.

Of course we're disputing it, so maybe I'm wrong!

[rawr]

Looks like the 6D is about a half a stop worse than the D600. That is better than I thought but still not surely open to dispute in my opinion.

You have to look at the 6D's SNR and DR performance across the ISO scale.
In terms of SNR, they are just about identical performers, but in dynamic range the 6D is actually a bit better than the D610 past about ISO 3200. So theoretically, 6D should look better than D610 at high ISO.

SNR:


DR:

[mecrox]

Looks like the 6D is about a half a stop worse than the D600. That is better than I thought but still not surely open to dispute in my opinion.

Of course we're disputing it, so maybe I'm wrong!

I was really thinking of AF ability as much as anything. Pentax now has very good AF performance in hardly any light at all, maybe as good as or better than Canon or Nikon, at least at roughly the same level in the market? In the case of the Canon 6D, apparently it's low-light AF is superior to the Nikon D6xxx thanks to a sensitive central focus point. if you add the two together - AF and sensor - then the Canon does nicely. It may simply perform more usefully than the D6xx in getting the shots in low light even if, file to file, the 6D isn't quite so good. But any forthcoming Pentax should easily surpass it. Besides, this is all being picky really. Any of these cameras including the K3 will deliver superb results if you are careful about it.

I also mentioned Canon because, strictly imho, they seem a very canny and well-run company with a robust view of how to sell well into the broad mass of camera buyers. They know what works even if sometimes we don't like the bald truths this reveals: for example, that so far the market doesn't seem too concerned about endless iterations of the same ageing sensor tech. They are also able to put "Made in Japan" on their premium products which might count for more than we think in some markets - and boardrooms. I've sometimes wondered whether, for Ricoh, doing a job as good as or better than Canon manage matters more than stacking up against the other companies.

[asahi man]

Sounds perfect Asahi Man! I always thought 24MP was enough, and 36MP is too close to the 645Z.

But Pentax needs some 'silent and fast' lenses to use with it....no use having a silent and fast camera with noisy and slow lenses

Add the lenses to the equation and I'm in (or I'll buy Sigma lenses in the meantime)

A Telezoom and a 70-200 are in sight.

[Winder]

A Telezoom and a 70-200 are in sight.

"in sight"? how far into the future can you see? Will they be announced at Photokina with the K-1?

[Alizarine]

seeing how the 645Z is marketed in their website as "beyond full frame" lessens my hope of the mythical K-1 ever appearing. Not being a pessimist here but unless new FF lenses are in the works I think Ricoh will continue to improve APS-C and related technologies. They still have some catching-up to do in other areas (like flash) anyways.

[rawr]

I've sometimes wondered whether, for Ricoh, doing a job as good as or better than Canon manage matters more than stacking up against the other companies.

Canon and Ricoh are competitors in a lot of business areas. It would certainly be nice for Pentaxians if Ricoh felt the need to go toe-to-toe with Canon in DSLR cameras

A Telezoom and a 70-200 are in sight.

Excellent. Sounds like FF preparations are working to a plan.

[Uluru]

Would they be able to sell/market a 24mp FF right next to a 24mp APSC for $1000 less? To you and I, we know the difference (and can make the choice based on our photographic needs). To the layman, they may not. Many people (general consumers) still only see the Mp count. All that being said, would Ricoh even be marketing the FF to the unknowing consumer masses. My guess is no. What is your thoughts on this?

Nikon can make any kind of FF and sell it at any price because they have tons of FF lenses. The majority of Nikon and Canon lenses now produced and in active lineup are FF lenses.

Pentax is not anywhere near that. Majority of current Pentax lenses are APS-C lenses. And that is a big part of the problem with their value proposition for the FF camera. They cannot make just another FF body like the D610 or 6D and put it on the shelves. Who is going to buy it? Why would you buy it? Where are the clearly advertised FF lenses for it?

Not to mention that Ricoh Imaging avoids any kind of answer re FF and are asserting their APS-C value as a better value than an FF. Their 645Z advertising uses FF as an example of something that does not match 645Z in any sense. Again, same message that sums in: "The FF is bad for you, we know it and we show it with our APS-C and 645Z."

So what will be their FF camera in regards to all that? How will they advertise the fact that they all of a sudden have an FF and that their FF is actually an excellent choice, better than the K-3 in value to justify its price and better than competitor's FF despite lack of lenses?

I dare not to imagine at all, because they need to pull a giant white rabbit out of their hat to make us believe they did not talk nonsense all these years but something with substance. Whatever they do, it must not be a K-3 with a 35mm sensor. It simply will not work like that.

To succeed, their FF must be a game changer in some way to be able to bear the cruel fact that there are not many FF lenses for it. That theoretical camera must have an extra that it gives something their own K-3, and all current FFs, cannot match, compare or deliver. So what is that extra that would lure some new user to buy a Pentax FF despite few lenses instead of a D610 (for which there are tons of lenses)?

When you try to imagine an answer, you come to the conclusion that a theoretical Pentax FF cannot be what Asahiman is writing about and others take for granted.