Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-03-2014, 04:53 AM   #346
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,693
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Eeek! My eyes! Neh, it doesn't have to look like the Spotmatic. Just introduce affordable 35mm format, like the Spotmatic did 50 years ago.
Actually, I have the opposite reaction, I shot with a camera that looked like a Spotmatic for 20 years.... (one Spotmatic, one SV) it must have been imprinting or something, but for me, that's what a camera should look like. Everything else is compared to that. "Ya, those D800s look great, but they aren't Spotmatics....". I can't help it.

07-03-2014, 05:12 AM   #347
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,720
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
Just introduce affordable 35mm format, like the Spotmatic did 50 years ago.
I bet if one looked into average household incomes 50 years ago, I suspect the Spotmatic was not at all cheap and affordable upon introduction. Adjusted for inflation, and household income growth over the last 50 years, the price would probably look a lot like what a D810 costs today.
07-03-2014, 05:45 AM   #348
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,693
IN 67 I bought an SV (with 55mm lens) for $157 at Toronto camera, a spotmatic would have cost me $225. My summer job paid me $60 a week. The same summer job today would pay me maybe $400 per week. SO 225x7= $1575, gee pretty close to the cost of a K-3 with a few extras.

But with my Spotmatic, I still had to buy film. With D800 or K-3 the cost of "film" is paid upfront, so in effect, they are way cheeper. I used to spend between 150 and 200 in processing costs each year, minimum. SO over the life of the Spotmatic, at least $2000 probably more like $3000 in film costs and processing costs. Over the life of the camera, the Spotmatic cost me way more than a D800 would today, if you count the cost of actually taking pictures.
07-03-2014, 05:47 AM   #349
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,672
QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
You mean something lilke this:

Asahi Pentax Spotmatic D Concept

(Probably been posted before)
Well there is some bulk coming to the body for SR and the screen, but it does look nice. I would prefer a larger screen like on that new Leica T.

07-03-2014, 05:52 AM   #350
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,693
I'd always be trying to open the back door, every time I wanted to change ISO of the sensor And where's the rewind crank? Maybe it could be used to recharge the batteries?

Last edited by normhead; 07-03-2014 at 06:14 AM.
07-03-2014, 06:04 AM   #351
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,838
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Well then Pentax can bring out the cheapest FF that is possible. In the short run that would give all users a camera to buy and in the long run they have a camera at the bottom pricepoint.
Oh, boy...

People talking about "cheapest" are actually saying: "I won't pay a realistic price for this product". Should I include the "Spotmatic D" contraption here as well?
07-03-2014, 06:04 AM   #352
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,619
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Hiring few individuals is quite different than taking over Magic Lantern and preventing it from being further developed for Canon.

Photographers don't hope to get FF without AF. Only few individuals are asking for that, and I'm not convinced they would buy. And there are significant differences between EVFs and OVFs.

We already have those lighter and smaller lenses, e.g. the DA Limiteds. They won't disappear.

Then, go with Panasonic. You'll get over how a Pentax feels, you'll have your video, electronic viewfinder and mirrorless.
Because Pentax is mostly about K-mount, and values stills over video.
In any case development of Magic Lantern for Canon could be hurt by having fewer resources. Then again, they may bring improvements at the Pentax version to Canon and vice versa. No matter what, I think Pentax has only to gain from this.


I'd already be happy if the K-3 was as good for video as the K-5 was, plus perhaps the few video improvements that the K-3 did bring. However if they want to extend their user base, maybe they should indeed focus a bit more on video, instead of telling interested users to "screw you, buy another brand". And didn't I mention I prefer OVF and mirrors (at least for the time being)? I was just saying that the solution for a big viewfinder is not FF and dropping AF, it's using an EVF. We are getting to the point where EVF can compete with OVF, though such a screen would be expensive.


@normhead: Like this?



That Spotmatic D is sexy! It just could need an A setting on the exposure dial. And/or maybe an override function. Also, those renderings are extremely well done.
07-03-2014, 06:18 AM   #353
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I'd always be trying to open the back door, every time I wanted to change ISO of the sensor And where's the rewind crank? Maybe it could be used to recharge the batteries?
Emergency power - brilliant

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 15:20 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Oh, boy...

People talking about "cheapest" are actually saying: "I won't pay a realistic price for this product". Should I include the "Spotmatic D" contraption here as well?
Why would you? The viewfinder alone will add enough to the price tag to satisfy even you!

07-03-2014, 06:33 AM   #354
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,672
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Oh, boy...

People talking about "cheapest" are actually saying: "I won't pay a realistic price for this product". Should I include the "Spotmatic D" contraption here as well?
Well to make it cheap I would offcourse give up on some futures.


Things to leave out off the camera that make it more expensve:
  • A cheaper shutter that only does 1/4000th as fastest.
  • Small buffer, so no large series off RAW.
  • Just one processor inside to run all processes.
  • Not a DSLR, so no large viewfinder.
  • A mirrorless camera, but no EVF.
  • No PDAF module inside.
  • PRIME M inside, so just 12-bit RAW.

One off the reasons camera's like 1Dx are expensive is that they are almost as capable as your laptop when it comes to the electronics inside. So when walking away fromm that you can make a camera that can take great images. You won't handling it at major sports events, since it can't do 11 frame per second and keep up with AF. But all those things do add to the cost off the camera. With the K-01 I can do 1 fps and make excellent images and that is also possible with a camera like that (can have a different outside) that has a full frame sensor inside.

I still would pay for what that camera is. A camera wich you and I could make great portraits, family snapshots and almost everything that wants to be on a picture. And not paying for all those things a camera could do, but most people never use.
07-03-2014, 06:55 AM   #355
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,838
QuoteOriginally posted by kadajawi Quote
In any case development of Magic Lantern for Canon could be hurt by having fewer resources. Then again, they may bring improvements at the Pentax version to Canon and vice versa. No matter what, I think Pentax has only to gain from this.
Pentax should hire the entire software industry, making sure nobody would be left to work for Canon
Sorry, this kind of strategy doesn't make sense to me, even more so after discussion about limited resources and how hard is to hire people

Video go well with electronic viewfinders, and about not at all with reflex ones

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Why would you? The viewfinder alone will add enough to the price tag to satisfy even you!
Why wouldn't I?
I can think of only 2 reasons (besides not knowing anything about camera design):
- price, i.e. the baseless hope that it would be cheap because Spotmatics can be found for cheap. It's supposed to be used with M42 flea market lenses, of course.
- an excessive amount of fake nostalgia (the author was born way after the Spotmatic era)

QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Well to make it cheap I would offcourse give up on some futures.
This kind of product will have a hard time competing with heavily discounted, 5 years old second hand cameras from the competition while not being really cheaper than current, modern, fully-featured models. It works... if your purpose is to bury Pentax/Ricoh.
07-03-2014, 07:01 AM   #356
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,672
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
This kind of product will have a hard time competing with heavily discounted, 5 years old second hand cameras from the competition while not being really cheaper than current, modern, fully-featured models. It works... if your purpose is to bury Pentax/Ricoh.
Well I think that such a camera, next to a "normal" FF DSLR would make an excellent choice for customers. Not all off them are rich. Not all off them are professional photographers or photo-hobbyist. A camera with a pricetag that can be bought by many people. A camera that could be used maybe only for holiday or family pictures, but pricewise is still a good thing to buy.
07-03-2014, 07:07 AM   #357
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,693
I'm getting to be of the opinion that a pile of people will buy the first Pentax Ff just because it's a Pentax. Having talked to a couple of salesmen shortly after the launch of the K-3, the sales guys were totally blown away, and unprepared for the demand. One small camera store guy told me he sold 3 in the first month and would have sold 10 if he had them. But, the K-3 was the first real update in a few years. I'm guessing with the release of a new FF Pentax, it will sell if it's got K-1000 functionality and Deputy Dog's name is on the back.
07-03-2014, 07:29 AM   #358
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote

Why wouldn't I?
I can think of only 2 reasons (besides not knowing anything about camera design):
- price, i.e. the baseless hope that it would be cheap because Spotmatics can be found for cheap. It's supposed to be used with M42 flea market lenses, of course.
- an excessive amount of fake nostalgia (the author was born way after the Spotmatic era)


This kind of product will have a hard time competing with heavily discounted, 5 years old second hand cameras from the competition while not being really cheaper than current, modern, fully-featured models. It works... if your purpose is to bury Pentax/Ricoh.
I really think you need to relax about "cheap" and "killing" or "burrying" RP. The ff if it comes will cost what it costs and after a few months, what the market will bear. That's the way it always goes. We will see.

While stripped full format k01 w/o either ovf or evf would not be my cup of tea, it is a perfectly reasonable proposition, filling a void in any manufacturer's current camera line up. R&D would be as low as can be expected.

A camera that takes the proposition of 'manual focus' absolutely seriously and has the viewfinder to prove it, that appeals to slow- as opposed to fast food lovers, is also a perfectly reasonable proposition. Again R&D could be minimized, the pressure to come up with a full suite of lenses lessened, Pentax can learn and practice etc etc.

Now just why You think that a $2500 CaNikon knock-off with a k mount with all the bells and whistles will be the road to RP's salvation is still not clear. It will do nothing to attarct anyone from outside Pentax and if intended as an upgrade path, will find that the Pentax user base is just not what it was in the 1970's. Maybe it will sell in sufficient numbers, likely it won't. One thing is absolutely certain. It will cost MUCH more to develop than either of the cameras proposed by Ron or me.

So just stop telling those with different ideas from yours they are sinking the Pentax ship. It is you who proposes the risky course!
07-03-2014, 07:35 AM   #359
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,838
Ron, I disagree. Let me restate again its competition:
- modern, fully featured (and similarly priced - we can at most hope for a modestly cheaper product) models from the competition
- modern and cheaper APS-C cameras
- still more modern and better featured new-old-stock and second hand cameras from the competition
How many would go for an inferior product?

Norm, but the K-3 was not successful "just because it's a Pentax". The 645Z isn't successful "just because it's a Pentax". They're both amazing cameras.
Did we forgot how the K-01 was received? (until few people warmed up to it) Those not learning from the history are doomed to repeat it (or ask for the same things).

---------- Post added 03-07-14 at 05:59 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
I really think you need to relax about "cheap" and "killing" or "burrying" RP. The ff if it comes will cost what it costs and after a few months, what the market will bear. That's the way it always goes. We will see.
A bit more planning will be put into the product, I'm quite sure of that

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
While stripped full format k01 w/o either ovf or evf would not be my cup of tea, it is a perfectly reasonable proposition, filling a void in any manufacturer's current camera line up. R&D would be as low as can be expected.
Again, let's remind how well it was received.

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
A camera that takes the proposition of 'manual focus' absolutely seriously and has the viewfinder to prove it, that appeals to slow- as opposed to fast food lovers, is also a perfectly reasonable proposition. Again R&D could be minimized, the pressure to come up with a full suite of lenses lessened, Pentax can learn and practice etc etc.
Sorry, the autofocus dilemma was solved decades ago - guess who won

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
Now just why You think that a $2500 CaNikon knock-off with a k mount with all the bells and whistles will be the road to RP's salvation is still not clear. It will do nothing to attarct anyone from outside Pentax and if intended as an upgrade path, will find that the Pentax user base is just not what it was in the 1970's. Maybe it will sell in sufficient numbers, likely it won't. One thing is absolutely certain. It will cost MUCH more to develop than either of the cameras proposed by Ron or me.
I never said RI should make a "CaNikon knock-off". A competitive model, possibly based on the K-3 - that's not the same.
I never said it's required in order to "save" RI. The sky is not falling, even without a FF.
Big assumption, that it "won't sell in sufficient numbers" (with another implicit big assumption, that a non-competitive camera would).
If it cost MUCH more to develop a modern camera, why everyone is doing it instead of crippling products?

QuoteOriginally posted by eyeswideshut Quote
So just stop telling those with different ideas from yours they are sinking the Pentax ship. It is you who proposes the risky course!
They are not sinking the Pentax ship because Pentax (Ricoh Imaging) won't do it.
The obvious way - paved by the K-3 and the preceding K-mount cameras - will not suddenly turn from the way they're surviving into a risky course just by crossing the FF line.
07-03-2014, 08:02 AM   #360
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,619
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Pentax should hire the entire software industry, making sure nobody would be left to work for Canon
Sorry, this kind of strategy doesn't make sense to me, even more so after discussion about limited resources and how hard is to hire people

Video go well with electronic viewfinders, and about not at all with reflex ones


Why wouldn't I?
I can think of only 2 reasons (besides not knowing anything about camera design):
- price, i.e. the baseless hope that it would be cheap because Spotmatics can be found for cheap. It's supposed to be used with M42 flea market lenses, of course.
- an excessive amount of fake nostalgia (the author was born way after the Spotmatic era)


This kind of product will have a hard time competing with heavily discounted, 5 years old second hand cameras from the competition while not being really cheaper than current, modern, fully-featured models. It works... if your purpose is to bury Pentax/Ricoh.
If hiring a couple of software developers who might be glad to get the chance to officially work on a camera, with all the resources that are associated with such a gig, bankrupts Pentax/Ricoh, then they might as well give up. Also, the point wasn't to hurt Canon, that would at most be a side effect (besides Canon does have proper developers for video in house. Keep in mind that Canon is not all too happy about Magic Lantern, they want to sell their more expensive video focused gear instead! Something Pentax doesn't have, so their stills cameras can be as good for video as possible. They can only gain from that).


Video goes well with reflex cameras too, you can always add an external monitor (which ideally also records the video in a higher quality format). Or if you're cheap, you add something that lets you use the monitor as an EVF. Besides, (some) people don't need a camera that is great at stills, but sucks at video, or that is great at video, but sucks at stills. A wedding photographer may want to switch back and forth. An in house photographer may have to do product photos and portraits of the CEO, and then shoot an image video or ad for YouTube or even TV. Only having to do stills OR video is a luxury not everyone has. And if Pentax wants to stay relevant...


The Spotmatic has a way of using a camera that appeals to some, including me. I think it would lead to a more thought out type of photography. Fewer photos, but better ones. It slows down the photographer from a point click next point click next to an approach where he does the settings, adjusts everything, composes properly...


@RonHendriks:
I don't think the savings would be so great. The lack of an EVF would make a reasonable difference, but it would also turn the camera into one that frequently isn't usable, depending on where you are. How about instead dropping the outside monitor, if you must, but keeping an EVF? You can still review shots on the EVF. It would also allow for a thinner body, which due to SR would get thicker.


Does Pentax not use only one processor? Only Canon uses several, as their image processor system seems to be scalable, unlike what Fujitsu offers to Nikon and Pentax. To be honest I'd rather have Pentax use the Canon processor. It seems to be pretty great. Sony has something impressive too.


The PDAF module would have to sit on the sensor anyway in a mirrorless, and those sensors exist. Also, Pentax doesn't have the most sophisticated CDAF system out there, if they had to develop something decent that adds to the cost. No clue if there is a premium to pay for a sensor with PDAF built in.


Not sure how the buffer inside a DSLR is realized, but if it's simply RAM... have you checked the prices of RAM lately?


I'm not sure if lower end cameras are cheap because they are cheaper to make, or because the manufacturer can't charge much for them. Canon for example seems to artificially slow down cameras so they don't hurt the sales of their more expensive (more profitable) models. They keep the entry level gear so that people buy into the brand, buy lenses, and upgrade because they are frustrated that their camera is not fast enough, lacks a couple of features they want, is a bit hard to use for advanced users who want access to everything.


That has, luckily, never been Pentax' approach (with the cameras being as good as they could for the given hardware). And it wouldn't make sense with the FF Pentax.


I bet that if we'll see a FF Pentax, it will cost more than the competitors. Even if the specs are the same.


Why wouldn't someone who is not that rich, not that much into photography etc. buy a FF? Why not an APS-C camera?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
24x36mm, adapter, af, aps-c, bodies, body, cameras, ergonomics, film, frame, full frame camera, full-frame, k-01, lcd, lenses, market, micro four thirds, mirroless camera, mirrorless, pentax, people, ricoh, sensor, shutter, size, struggle, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Full Frame NEX is going to be announced in October ! jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 30 09-15-2013 03:23 PM
Pentax does not care about Full Frame Watson Pentax Full Frame 88 08-19-2013 04:53 AM
Are Any of The 17-50 (or in that range) Lenses Full Frame? reivax Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 12 02-04-2013 07:38 PM
Do you think in the long run, DA lenses are a bad buy? Size of CCDs in the future Capslock118 Pentax DSLR Discussion 28 11-07-2010 06:46 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top