[jsherman999]

I don't think Sony cares about leadership, i think they just care about selling product

OLD THINK: Decide what kind of system to build, distribute body and several lenses at the same time

NEW Sony THINK: Decide what kind of system to build, distribute body with minimal lenses and adapters for legacy lenses, gauge customer response, go from there

I think Sony is actually doing as well with their new product introductions as the traditional camera companies. Examples of problem systems:

a. Pentax's K01 - they cancelled any follow-up product
b. Nikon's 1 system - They announced last year the system needs to be reworked - whatever that means
c. Canon's M-mount - They sold off remaining stock at heavy discount and reworked it somehow - don't have the details

In contrast
d. I can't think of any recent Sony camera introductions that have gone bad. E and FE mount bodies were both introduced with minimal lenses, and have had successful introductions judging by review comments. Sony is gradually providing additional lenses for these systems to the extent that the A-mount owners are complaining about the lack of attention to Sony's legacy system.

The A850/A900 were examples of products that really failed to live up to expectations, and the probable reason was Lack Of Lenses (interesting link)

So I don;t know if that strategy ("Decide what kind of system to build, distribute body with minimal lenses and adapters for legacy lenses") works in the DSLR/MILC space at least

---------- Post added 09-08-14 at 08:20 AM ----------

Marketing having to explain why Pentax' best K-mount cameras are using smaller sensors than the competition?

The only way it works is if the aps-H lineup can be set up to compete against other manufacturers aps-C cameras - that way Pentax's cameras are using larger sensors than the competition.

Thing is I don't know how that can possibly happen unless Pentax takes a big per-unit profit hit, or they pull some other vendor out of a hat who's able/willing to make them cheaply enough (Aptina?)

---

Last edited by jsherman999; 09-08-2014 at 07:22 AM.

[Fogel70]

Canon discontinued the APS-H line to consolidate 2 camera lines into one and save money. Most 1D owners are still 1D owners. They have not "upgraded" to the 1D X. Everyone who's ever owned a camera with an APS-H sensor loves the format.

Are you saying that no one that owned a Canon APS-H DSLR have upgraded to FF?

A smaller sensor will always be faster than a larger one of the same generation using the same technology. It's just physics.

In theory, yes. But as APS-H sensors are not being manufactured anymore, and it might not be possible to get APS-H sensors with same sensor tech as best FF sensors. Pentax can only sell a limited number of FF/APS-H cameras so they probably have to use one of the less known sensor manufacturers for a custom design sensors. Which usually means that the sensor tech is inferior to the latest sensor tech.
Pentax cameras are rarely speed monsters, so using APS-H would not be because of FF being too slow.

A larger sensor will always have better image quality than a smaller one of equivalent resolution in the same generation. Again, simple physics.

Yep, that is why most want the largest possible sensor that the system allow (aka Full Frame in most DSLR systems) when upgrading from APS-C.

An APS-H sensor would have better IQ, low light performance, make better use of FF lenses, and give shallower depth of field than an APS-C sensor.

Yes, but FF will have same advantage over APS-H.

An APS-H sensor would be faster, lighter, provide more reach and result in a smaller camera than a FF sensor.

Yes, but APS-C will have even bigger advantage in this than APS-H. The Q might be the ultimate system in this regard.

There's no downside here. None whatsoever. Just benefit. Add to that my second prediction of using sensor-shift to produce 4x the resolution in controlled environments, and you've got a simple-to-produce blockbuster camera with specs that most professional photographers would drool over.

There are many downsides on using APS-H.
- Supply of APS-H sensors is difficult to find so old inferior sensor tech might have to be used.
- Market expect FF when it come to high end ILC, so it might be very difficult to find customers that pay premium price for APS-H.
- Difficult to market a system that is technically inferior to competition.
- Few existing lenses optimized for APS-H sensor. New lenses optimized for APS-H will be needed. FI a 20-60mm normal zoom.
- Users want best possible support for their old FF lenses (FF camera).

[Tan68]

If it is too hard to find APS-H and APS-H is the best way to go... perhaps Pentax could get some low cost (or lowest cost) FF sensor and put that in the camera but reduce output by digitally cropping it.

Use the FF sensor, place it permanently in 'crop mode', then tell everyone it is APS-H. Then people still get all the benefits of APS-H described in the thread but Pentax can use a cheaper part.

[peterjcb]

just throwing this out there...
I have been hoping for a FF Pentax but now I'm not so sure I'd want one.
Keep in mind that I know what FF is but I've never actually had one in my hands.
A couple of weekeds ago I met a guy with Canon FF complete with his accessories bag. He looked like he was going for a mountain hike!! I introduced myself and took a look at his gear. Man, that stuff is big and heavy! He had a gigantic zoom lens on his body and it weighed a ton. While he was doing a lot of walking & talking I was busy taking shoots with my little GR.
If this is what FF is all about then count me out. There's no way I'd buy a Pentax FF is I had to lug all that around. My FA31 is big enough and I think I'll keep my K-5 or possibly K-3 if I ever decide to upgrade.

[easyreeder]

Use the FF sensor, place it permanently in 'crop mode', then tell everyone it is APS-H. Then people still get all the benefits of APS-H described in the thread but Pentax can use a cheaper part.

They could just crop to 1.1 or something, and have no additional crop in SR.

[philbaum]

The A850/A900 were examples of products that really failed to live up to expectations, and the probable reason was Lack Of Lenses (interesting link)

So I don;t know if that strategy ("Decide what kind of system to build, distribute body with minimal lenses and adapters for legacy lenses") works in the DSLR/MILC space at least
---------- Post added 09-08-14 at 08:20 AM ----------

.

Interesting article and comments. I don't know enough to debate the reasons for the A900/850 not being more successful, but going up against Nikon and Canon is a tough challenge, as entrenched as they are in the marketplace.

But i would debate with you that Sony has been successful in the MILC APS (and perhaps in the FF mirrorless space- we don't know that yet) arena. I don't know how to find Sony's share of the mirrorless camera share in the APS market niche, but i would guess they are number 1 in market share, probably followed by Fuji, Samsung, Canon EOS M, and Pentax K01 in some order. If you are number 1 in sales in a market niche, how is that not being successful?

When i first got my Sony Nex 5n, i was critical of Sony's lack of lens support - but no more. Per this link:
A List of Native E-mount Lenses: Primes and Zooms, Alpha Adapters and Conversion Lenses: Sony Alpha/NEX E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

they now have 44 native e-mount and FE mount lenses that can be used on their APS MILC. That doesn't include all the legacy adapters for Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Minolta A mount style lenses. So Sony came through with the lenses for APS e-mount and they seem on their way to do the same for the FF FE mount as well. So i'm on good ground to say they have been successful in the mirrorless arena. Haven't even mentioned the ground-breaking RX-1

For some reason, Nikon, Canon and Pentax (with the sole exception of the K01, have chosen not to compete with Sony in the mirrorless niche in FF or APS with their current FF mounts/lenses. I think that will eventually change, but its interesting to see how this paradigm shift will play out.

I do like the lens quality one finds in the Fuji mirrorless. and the image below comes from their Photokina ad.

Pentax could be brilliant in the mirrorless market with their K-mount lenses if they choose to engage.

[JimmyDranox]

Interesting article and comments. I don't know enough to debate the reasons for the A900/850 not being more successful, but going up against Nikon and Canon is a tough challenge, as entrenched as they are in the marketplace.

But i would debate with you that Sony has been successful in the MILC APS (and perhaps in the FF mirrorless space- we don't know that yet) arena. I don't know how to find Sony's share of the mirrorless camera share in the APS market niche, but i would guess they are number 1 in market share, probably followed by Fuji, Samsung, Canon EOS M, and Pentax K01 in some order. If you are number 1 in sales in a market niche, how is that not being successful?

When i first got my Sony Nex 5n, i was critical of Sony's lack of lens support - but no more. Per this link:
A List of Native E-mount Lenses: Primes and Zooms, Alpha Adapters and Conversion Lenses: Sony Alpha/NEX E-mount Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

they now have 44 native e-mount and FE mount lenses that can be used on their APS MILC. That doesn't include all the legacy adapters for Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Minolta A mount style lenses. So Sony came through with the lenses for APS e-mount and they seem on their way to do the same for the FF FE mount as well. So i'm on good ground to say they have been successful in the mirrorless arena. Haven't even mentioned the ground-breaking RX-1

For some reason, Nikon, Canon and Pentax (with the sole exception of the K01, have chosen not to compete with Sony in the mirrorless niche in FF or APS with their current FF mounts/lenses. I think that will eventually change, but its interesting to see how this paradigm shift will play out.

I do like the lens quality one finds in the Fuji mirrorless. and the image below comes from their Photokina ad.

Pentax could be brilliant in the mirrorless market with their K-mount lenses if they choose to engage.

No primes AF lens longer than 55mm. And only one 300mm, manual and reflex lens. Fastest AF prime is F1.8. Fastest premium zoom is F4. No zoom longer than 210mm. Most primes are manual. Most of them are only APS-C.

The number, 44 lenses, doesn't mean much for an enthusiast and demanding user, in these conditions.

---

Last edited by JimmyDranox; 09-08-2014 at 11:33 AM.

[Tan68]

That might get a funny look or a raised eyebrow, but cropping 1.1x for FF wouldn't really be much different from what Canon does with their APS-C... about another 0.1x versus Nikon or Pentax.

Difference would be the fact it is Pentax doing it on FF... I don't recall anyone really complaining about or making the the extra 0.1x a real decision making buying point for the crop sensor Canons. Could work for FF...

They could just crop to 1.1 or something, and have no additional crop in SR.

[monochrome]

They could just crop to 1.1 or something, and have no additional crop in SR.

Heard a story that is a strongly considered solution (IBIS FF or slightly cropped IBIS FF is coming spring 2015, according to the story, which is worth the pickles you are reading this on).

[noser]

Honest question: Has anyone noticed that on APS-C crop lenses, with SR on a long-ish exposure, that one or two of the corners is darker?

By extension to FF lenses/sensors, under most circumstances the sensor would be shifting so 99% of the image still falls on the same area of the sensor, right? It's just one (or maybe two) corners that might move outside the image circle, correct?

I guess what I'm asking is that for lenses with very tight APS-C image circles on current bodies, has anyone noticed a dark corner? I have never noticed this ever. Is there software compensation to the RAW file?

And would FF be any different?

I know that a few years ago someone did the math, and IIRC the APS-C sensor was only moving a mm or two +/- ... or was it more?

If so, then FF wouldn't need to be cropped, right?

[Winder]

The A850/A900 were examples of products that really failed to live up to expectations, and the probable reason was Lack Of Lenses (interesting link)

I think it had more to do with Canon starting the HD video revolution. The A900 launch just before the Canon 5DII, and once the 5DII was announced the only thing people seemed to talk about was HD video which the A900 lacked. It was another example of how Sony has missed the market.

[johnmflores]

It could be a phone....

[kadajawi]

So... I've just read that Olympus has a beta firmware for the OM-D E-M1 that does 4K video and different frame rates... things it couldn't do in the beginning. They are actually upgrading the camera after it was launched. Something that Pentax has rarely ever done, and clearly not such a big change. Even a year ago Olympus has said that video isn't what the brand is about, and if you want video, you should buy Panasonic. And look at them now... fully embracing video (even preparing a cine lens series!). Apparently THEY have realized what matters. They even gave cameras to actual professionals in the film industry, you know, to get opinions and feedback. Pentax on the other hand... if they had done that, they would have been told that the K-3 is a step back from the K-5.


And Cine lenses? They are usually primes that are high quality and super smooth to focus... in other words Limited lenses without AF.


It becomes clearer and clearer to me that once again Pentax does not care about professional users, and that ultimately they are doomed because pure photographers become a rarity, especially if they have to earn a living with their photography. And those who shoot for fun... why not go with Fuji or Leica? At this point I've lost all hope for the brand, and won't be buying any lenses for Pentax anymore. I give them time until I need to replace my K-5 (which luckily is the last Pentax that was still good for video), if they haven't come to senses by then I'll be leaving the brand. Every other brand can also create good photos, so that is not a differentiator. I don't care if a Pentax is 1% better. That's irrelevant. A camera that is slightly better at one thing, but completely useless at the other, just as important thing, will of course lose to a camera that is good at both. The way it looks like now the OM-D E-M1 has just become extremely interesting. Great video quality, decent stills quality (good enough is good enough), extremely good video stabilization (Pentax used to have good video quality, great stills quality and good video stabilization, but that's long gone, now it's bad video quality, great stills and utterly appalling video stabilization).


@devouges: I use video all the time. And for professional photographers it's often enough a job requirement to shoot video too.

[JimmyDranox]

Let's don't say hop until the jump. After what I have seen lately, meaning the price drop on the all K-3 variants, I have a hunch that we will see a new flagship. Maybe with good video. maybe FF, maybe APS-C. And hopefully, at Photokina.

[easyreeder]

At this point I've lost all hope for the brand, and won't be buying any lenses for Pentax anymore.

I'm with you. It's rather odd that people don't talk about this on the forums. Even if by some miracle Sony or whoever doesn't beat Pentax to the specs you want, you have curtailed your spending on Pentax products. I've been on hiatus for about three months. I mean, I confess, I did buy the limited 43, but I also sold three Pentax F primes and one kit lens, and I've spent much more on other gear: a new tripod and tripod head. Oh, and I am keeping my vintage Pentax lenses, which suffer nothing from an adapter, and in fact, to get control of the aperture on an M lens you need an adapter for a new Pentax K mount anyway, ha. I can hear it already: "Pentax won't make any money if you're just using old glass." Well, I'm not. People buy new lenses for their new cameras. The vintage glass is great to have but all manual, and generally more specialty stuff. And, on the flip side, if I'm using my vintage Pentax lenses on a Sony, Pentax is definitely not making money.

Indeed, the K3 video leaves something to be desired, but we're mainly talking about the SR. The K5 only shoots 25p at HD, which is kinda weird. I mean, maybe ok but not exactly a range of options.