[ElJamoquio]

110% better low light performance... not good enough. But 150% for three times as much money? There's a good deal.

---------- Post added 07-01-14 at 08:57 AM ----------

Ok, that confuses me. Why are for FF zooms good enough, while for APS-C you need primes? Don't FF sensors have higher resolution, thus creating the need for better, sharper glass? Or am I mixing something up? Could it be more related to Pentax having great primes, and that's why you have them?

I came to Pentax because they had great small primes.

I ended up buying quite a few of them.

I like the resolution and rendition of the primes on Pentax. To match (really, to exceed) that same IQ, I find I 'only' need a zoom on FF.

FWIW, to oversimplify (but not by much) you need sharper glass when the pixel density is high, not when the number of pixels are high. So FF glass needs less sharp glass to perform as well as APS-C with the same megapixels. Take a look at the graph below - without an AA filter, and with glass that's 4x more expensive, and a more modest aperture, APS-C still lags FF by ~15%.

Once you remove the requirement for a jeans-pocketable camera and also remove the paradigm of large sensors being prohibitively expensive, there's not much room left for APS-C. Of course there's still room *right now*, but the trend will be against APS-C in DSLR's.

---

Last edited by ElJamoquio; 07-01-2014 at 09:37 AM.

[eyeswideshut]

Pentax needs to consider the needs of pro photographers, and that is, often enough, stills AND video.

Why do think they 'need' to consider the pros, a segment which Pentax have never really gone after this side of medium format? If they had really wanted to, they could/should have done it back in the 60's when Asahi was selling like 5 spotmatics and tons of lenses for every Nikon. Instead, they chose to produce the 67 and 645 series for professionals and cater to amateurs and enthusiasts at the 35mm level. Is there anything in the works that would lead you to believe they are changing their strategy (and play the Video game at a professional level, too?)

@Kunzite: I thought I replied already about the laughing stock. Hasselblad is a "laughing stock" because they have DRESSED UP a Sony camera. That's like encrusting a VW Golf in diamonds and then charging more for it than you would for a Mercedes S class.

I'll take the Golf with an extra helping of diamonds please Then I can sell it and buy a whole fleet of Mercedes and with the spare change a 645z and all the lenses. The rest i'll put into a savings account and from the interest accrued in one week I'll buy the ff when it arrives.

For thw rest you are completely loosing me. You seem to advocate Pentax go after the pros but warn against ff. Rebadging a ff Sony, however, would be allright - as long as nothing silly is added. Somehow Arri is involved too, but competing in the ff market would not be wise for Pentax because two others dominate already.
On the other hand ff is cool as it offers an upgrade path. Even cooler would be an aps-c mirrorless K1000 (Olympus did it, called it OM-D, Fuji just did one called it XT-1 and Sony - devoid of a heritage of their own - called theirs A7). Actually though a ff mirrorless K1000 would be cool too.

My summary is in jest and don't feel bad, but reread your piece and ask yourself: are you really being as clear as you think you are?

[philbaum]

Good point. The CIPA stats for May are just out and show the same picture as the previous months for this year. Briefly stated, they show that the industry is contracting sharply - by roughly 35 per cent in volume and 17 per cent in value, a very serious decline considering the precarious financial health of many camera operations. And that DSLRs are tanking in Europe and North America but that MILCs continue to do quite well, notably in Japan and so far this year in Europe too.

All this is only shipments, of course. Will the units sell and will they sell at full price?

There is little reason to think this pattern is going to change significantly in the near term, I'd suggest. So if you were sitting in Ricoh's planning office, which way would you bet? I mean, why produce yet more DSLRs when it appears that everyone who wants one already has one and folks in Europe and North America are turning off the taps? If the market is stagnant or declining then new sales can only come from taking share away from others, something that is very, very hard to do when the others are Canon and Nikon. The only patches of brightness in the stats lies in a) MILC sales, and not only in Japan, and b) shipments to "other areas" which I take it means areas like India. Perhaps there is a hint in that?

In the short term, there might be some good sales out there. But in the long term, if you are a shop owner, would you not cut back on the number of cameras ordered for the future?

And then Ricoh - they sold out the 2014 total production of 645Z, and to imagine that they would then produce a Pentax FF in a year when FF sales are dropping 20% WW and 29% in the Americas, is probably not realistic. If anything, wouldn't you instead order more 645Z which are selling???? Not that i would buy a 645z, but if i'm a manager who doesn't want to get fired, i'd try to think about what might make money for the company, rather than what i want to shoot with.

As mecrox said, the only bright spot out there is mirrorless sales, which are up 33% in Europe, but by lesser amounts in Japan and Asia, and even down by 12% in Americas (all numbers for the first 5 months of 2014.

What the stats don't break out for us is how FF sales are doing relative to APS/m4/3 sales - would be interesting to know.

With some exceptions, Nikon, Canon and Pentax seem wedded to the DSLR model despite its worsening sales relative to mirrorless. One has to acknowledge that mirrorless are now about 28% of DSLR sales.

[ElJamoquio]

As mecrox said, the only bright spot out there is mirrorless sales, which are up 33% in Europe, but by lesser amounts in Japan and Asia, and even down by 12% in Americas (all numbers for the first 5 months of 2014.

The pieces went down but the prices went up. Overall it was a 4.6% reduction in value, for DSLR's. Doesn't seem so terrible to me, especially given the major launches in 2012/early 2013, whereas thus far in 2014 it's been fairly quiet on the DSLR front.

[RonHendriks1966]

There is little reason to think this pattern is going to change significantly in the near term, I'd suggest. So if you were sitting in Ricoh's planning office, which way would you bet? I mean, why produce yet more DSLRs when it appears that everyone who wants one already has one and folks in Europe and North America are turning off the taps? If the market is stagnant or declining then new sales can only come from taking share away from others, something that is very, very hard to do when the others are Canon and Nikon. The only patches of brightness in the stats lies in a) MILC sales, and not only in Japan, and b) shipments to "other areas" which I take it means areas like India. Perhaps there is a hint in that?

You can really see economic crisis in Europe and America's with shipments going down 30 % even on dslr's. That is not compensated with the growth in mirrorless, and certainly not moneywise. This really makes it hard to introduce a new segment, FF for Pentax.

It all comes down to how expensive it is to develop that new camera with FF sensor. When most off it is in the SR system, then it's best to use it as much as possible. So make a dslr and mirroless full frame camera with both K-mount. Cater them all. As long as both together get enough sales to run a productionline on them both will ad to the brand.

On the other hand, waiting another year maybe is the smart way....

[ElJamoquio]

Average price per camera went up 8.9%, during a time when both APS-C and FF prices were falling. Sounds like FF is booming to me.

[kadajawi]

Why do think they 'need' to consider the pros, a segment which Pentax have never really gone after this side of medium format? If they had really wanted to, they could/should have done it back in the 60's when Asahi was selling like 5 spotmatics and tons of lenses for every Nikon. Instead, they chose to produce the 67 and 645 series for professionals and cater to amateurs and enthusiasts at the 35mm level. Is there anything in the works that would lead you to believe they are changing their strategy (and play the Video game at a professional level, too?)

I'll take the Golf with an extra helping of diamonds please Then I can sell it and buy a whole fleet of Mercedes and with the spare change a 645z and all the lenses. The rest i'll put into a savings account and from the interest accrued in one week I'll buy the ff when it arrives.

For thw rest you are completely loosing me. You seem to advocate Pentax go after the pros but warn against ff. Rebadging a ff Sony, however, would be allright - as long as nothing silly is added. Somehow Arri is involved too, but competing in the ff market would not be wise for Pentax because two others dominate already.
On the other hand ff is cool as it offers an upgrade path. Even cooler would be an aps-c mirrorless K1000 (Olympus did it, called it OM-D, Fuji just did one called it XT-1 and Sony - devoid of a heritage of their own - called theirs A7). Actually though a ff mirrorless K1000 would be cool too.

My summary is in jest and don't feel bad, but reread your piece and ask yourself: are you really being as clear as you think you are?

Oh, and how did that strategy of not trying to offer pro cameras in the 35mm area work? Oh right, Canon and Nikon absolutely dominate the market, and Pentax was in the meantime sold a few times and is on life support.


Ok. I'm saying Pentax should go after pros, yes, which means doing stills and video (IMHO a K-3 is perfectly capable for professional work, except for a few areas, and as long as video isn't a requirement (I know Lauren is a pro videographer using Pentax, and I can understand her reasons, but Pentax is not common in the video field, for good reasons)).


If they have done that on the video side, they can do the same camera with a FF sensor (more or less) and have a differentiator that can drive sales towards the FF Pentax to make it profitable.


A FF Pentax A7 would have minimal development costs (even production would be outsourced), so that it does not distract Pentax from doing APS-C and perhaps other exciting things. I simply don't think a FF Pentax, alongside new lenses, developed from scratch (or at least from the K-3) would at this point be profitable. If they get down those costs and the impact on Pentax' R&D department then why not? I do see advantages to them offering FF. It's just not worth it in the end.


I'd put my money on mirrorless. It's a growth market.


@ElJamoquio: Does that include ALL cameras, i.e. point & shoot or are we only talking DSLRs there? Cause if it's P&S, then the cheap camera market is dying.

[ElJamoquio]

@ElJamoquio: Does that include ALL cameras, i.e. point & shoot or are we only talking DSLRs there? Cause if it's P&S, then the cheap camera market is dying.

DSLR's only. The average DSLR got ~9% more expensive in a single year, (without major high-end product launches!).

[ChristianRock]

With all this talk of "the market's gonna disappear" it's interesting that Kodak just entered the MILC market. If it wasn't already crowded...

[RonHendriks1966]

With all this talk of "the market's gonna disappear" it's interesting that Kodak just entered the MILC market. If it wasn't already crowded...

Well to be honest, that thing is as hopeless as it can be. Maybe we will see it soon in a supermarket overhere as a top price offer. It has to be significant cheaper then Panasonic/Olympus offering or it won't stand a chance. Maybe local in China.

[Fogel70]

DSLR's only. The average DSLR got ~9% more expensive in a single year, (without major high-end product launches!).

It could be because bigger part of DSLR sales goes to existing users instead of new users.
Maybe a big part of entry level DSLR sales go to entry level MILC, and sales on advanced DSLR did not drop as much.

[ChristianRock]

Well to be honest, that thing is as hopeless as it can be. Maybe we will see it soon in a supermarket overhere as a top price offer. It has to be significant cheaper then Panasonic/Olympus offering or it won't stand a chance. Maybe local in China.

If you put a Panny 17mm in front of it all of a sudden it might not be so hopeless

You never know, the new "owners" of the Kodak name might be up to something. I guess let's give them the benefit of the doubt...

[ElJamoquio]

Maybe a big part of entry level DSLR sales go to entry level MILC, and sales on advanced DSLR did not drop as much.

Absolutely. In either case it seems like going into larger sensors is a requirement for manufacturers who want to make DSLR's.

[Kunzite]

I meant I guess great camera engineers don't grow on trees, they are quite rare. Hiring some engineers without the experience and without others to teach them to develop a new camera would be bad, IMHO. I think they should grow their team, but in an organic way, slowly. The current release cycle is... slow, to say the least. For the number of different lines they have it's fine, but if they are adding another one...?

If they are adding another one they would just have to plan accordingly (R&D capacity, production capacity, sales&marketing...). Maybe the investments in added capacity is (partly) because of this.

Canon users can't use 40 year old lenses, IIRC. They did a clean cut a while back. Also there are a ton of Canon and Nikon photographers, so even if few customers buy lenses, that's still a lot of lenses sold. Pentax has a much smaller market share, especially the FF part, if they end up doing it.

Canon did it in very different circumstances, and with strong technical reasons (as opposed to a "let's just screw our customers" kind of "reason").
This kind of thinking is very wrong, because it's making the false assumptions that people who would not buy new K-mount lenses would buy new mount lenses.

Pentax needs to consider the needs of pro photographers, and that is, often enough, stills AND video.

Why?
I'm all for keeping up with video (even though I have no need for it); but going after the pro market is not easy. It's not enough to have highly competitive products, you'll also need pro-level support, and sponsoring pros with equipment. Even pro photography is very difficult, but pro videographers as well?

@Kunzite: I thought I replied already about the laughing stock. Hasselblad is a "laughing stock" because they have DRESSED UP a Sony camera. That's like encrusting a VW Golf in diamonds and then charging more for it than you would for a Mercedes S class. It's not making the actually quite competent car any better. What you fail to see though is that Hasselblad is probably earning pretty well with these cameras. You may laugh at them, but they'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Certain people don't care about the actual product all that much, they want exclusivity, expensive (sounding) materials etc. Vertu was selling old Nokia phones for $10000, at a time where most people were using iPhones etc. And they did really well. Now at least they also make smartphones that are decent, but a HTC One will be just as good... for a fraction of the cost. But it's not a Vertu, the back is not made from alligator skin, ...


If Pentax were to rebadge a Sony camera for example, because it's a low volume market and doing something unique would not be economically viable, the reaction may not be as harsh (unless Pentax adds stupid gimmicks like Hasselblad does). I mean Mercedes is rebadging Renault for example. Nissan is rebadging Dacia. And on and on and on. So what?


Arri is another example like Leica, maybe even more important. Leica is, these days, more of a boutique manufacturer, doing collectors items. Arri though with it's 1100 employees dominates the movie equipment market.

Sony making cameras for Hasselblad was used as an example of what Pentax could do. A laughing-stock, as an example.
It doesn't matter if some people would pay billions on a turd, if it's covered in wood and has a Hasselblad badge (this time they used Sony cameras, next year we might see a Turdar ). This is not what Pentax is. This is not what Hasselblad was, but being controlled by equity firms probably didn't help.

I don't think it would be wise for Pentax to compete in a market (FF) where there are 2 extremely well established brands, with brand loyalty and where people have bought into the system (thus making switching even harder). There are not so many new users, and usually they come from those established brands anyway. There is of course the advantage in Pentax offering FF in that people from the start see an upgrade path all the way, where they can keep at least some of their gear should they want to switch from APS-C to FF. i.e. using a FF Pentax to sell APS-C Pentaxes. But at this point... not sure it is worth it.

Pentax is already competing in a market (DSLR) where there are 2 extremely well established brands. Pentax is growing (better said, recovering after Hoya) on that market. You're saying it wouldn't be wise but they're already doing this... the question is only about going one step upwards.

The mirrorless market is much more diverse. Canon is completely unimportant, Nikon is doing something a bit odd that doesn't seem to sell well. Panasonic and Olympus have one well established system, but they aren't absolutely dominating. Sony is there too, but they too aren't dominating. Samsung is a side note, and then there is Fuji and Leica battling it out for pure stills cameras that are a joy to use, cameras where user experience is all (IMHO). It is a very diverse market with many brands competing, but none of them have really caught on. I'd argue it'd be easier for Pentax to do a mirrorless APS-C (or perhaps mFT?) camera that has something new to offer. It could be like the K1000. A Nikon Df done right. Comes with a K mount adapter that gives full K mount functionality. Perhaps it's even easier to do a FF version (no bigger prism needed, no new bigger mirror mechanism needed). And different sensor versions, with essentially identical cameras but different sensors for different purposes (like the A7 series... I think Sony is on to something).

The mirrorless market is both much smaller, and controlled by several extremely well established brands. More competition in a smaller market, lower price points, customers too price sensitive...
The arguments against doing a FF DSLR are working better against a FF MILC. Then, there good reasons not to start a system with a niche FF line (but with a higher volume APS-C).

Oh, and how did that strategy of not trying to offer pro cameras in the 35mm area work? Oh right, Canon and Nikon absolutely dominate the market, and Pentax was in the meantime sold a few times and is on life support.

Hold your horses; this is misinformation.
- Pentax was not "sold a few times"; we're talking about one hostile takeover (with "insider" i.e. major shareholder support/orchestration) and then they were sold once (because the company doing the hostile takeover never wanted Pentax Imaging, but only the medical division). Both are linked so we can consider it a single event.
- Pentax is not on life support. Well, the company is Ricoh Imaging now - a merger of what was left from Pentax Imaging and Ricoh's own camera division. It's growing and profitable, and Ricoh is investing in them.
- a pro 35mm camera would solve nothing by itself, in fact it can bury a viable company. And Nikon launched their "full frame" late in the game, after competing with Canon with APS-C models (including pro cameras).

A FF Pentax A7 would have minimal development costs (even production would be outsourced), so that it does not distract Pentax from doing APS-C and perhaps other exciting things. I simply don't think a FF Pentax, alongside new lenses, developed from scratch (or at least from the K-3) would at this point be profitable. If they get down those costs and the impact on Pentax' R&D department then why not? I do see advantages to them offering FF. It's just not worth it in the end.

Why making any camera at all then? They could fire everyone but board and sales, and buy their cameras from Sony. You don't want Pentax products so you don't care; and you're arguing with Pentaxians who care about Pentax products.

I'd put my money on mirrorless. It's a growth market.

Of course you do.
But hyping mirrorless on a SLR brand forum is a bit strange.

[ElJamoquio]

I thought this was the Pentax forum. Did I somehow wander into the Minolta forum?