[Clavius]

I must add that, in my honest opinion, paying more for getting less is quite bizarre. An APS-C sensor is smaller then an FF sensor, and is not more complex to produce, so it should always be costing less. Otherwise you're being ripped off. But wise men guarantee me that it is possible.

[rawr]

We are there now and have been for a while, imho. I suspect the Canon 6D served notice on high-end APS-C equipment a couple of years ago.

True. All of what you say makes me feel that the time is right - for consumers and the company - for Ricoh to make it's FF move.

[kadajawi]

You keep forgetting not everyone wants the added bulk that FF means (at the very least on the lens side). You can give me a FF for less than an APS-C, and I'll still probably buy the APS-C. Take away the option and I might consider moving towards mFT. The APS-C segment would get smaller, but it would not vanish.


Also, there's more to a camera that costs money than just the sensor. Put a FF sensor into a body that's basically a supersized 1000D. Would you buy it? Even if it were cheaper than a K-3 or a 7D?

[normhead]

I suspect the Canon 6D served notice on high-end APS-C equipment a couple of years ago. The reason is that high-end APS-C bodies have come down in price as a consequence. Were it not for cameras like the 6D, the D600 and the A7, cameras like the K3 or the D7100 would be priced more highly than they are now. A further ratchet an be applied, perhaps by Sony dropping the price of the A7 when new models are introduced, or simply introducing an A7 Lite, or Canon selling the 6D at a discount for a while after its successor is launched.

Before I pre-ordered my K-3, I stopped in at the local camera store handled a D600, checked lout the specs and tests on both the 6D and D600, and came to the conclusion that even though I could get refurb D600's and 6Ds for the same money, I was better off with a K-3, The 6D can't match the K-3 in absolute resolution, and the D600 is only marginally better. And the fast 85 on the D600 while impressive, was not a better performer than my K-3.

Here's the thing I would really like from FF advocates, stop focussing on FF taking away APS-c users. That is not going to happen. One of my friends bought a D3200 and 18-250 for less than $700. There an FF would have to have a 24 to 400 on it to match the FoV. Not going to happen, never going to match the price.

You can speculate about high end users, but I've actually done the research and the math. I doubt that the 6D has converted more than a couple high end APS-c shooters. The value just isn't there.

There's a guy on the forum who has figured out exactly the parameters that would make FF attractive to a budget conscious user. Cheap body (6D or D600) Cheap fast lenses, usually second hand, lenses less than 60mm.

Most people who have invested in FF systems, many have kept their APS-c stuff. Many shoot a lot less FF than APS-c. Based on the experience of forum users, my guess is you should plan on keeping both systems, there have been some rather heart breaking posts from new FF users who didn't understand what they were losing when they sold their high end APS-c gear to purchase an FF system. Once it's gone, you'll know though.

As far as i can tell, there are two types of FF users, pros, who want a more distinctive look and are willing to pay the big bucks to get it as well as the little bit of extra low light performance, and people with lot's of money, who just want to believe they have the best, and who don't seem to realize, there is no "best", all their is is "best for what I'm doing right now", and that in going from APS-c to FF you're giving up "best in one situation" for best in "something else". (And one guy who says it's cheaper.)

When I see threads like this I truly expect to see discussions of FF's DoF and versatility, for possible use as a one format system for a specific type of shooter. Instead it's the same old speculation over and over again, with the success of FF depending on the demise of APS-c etc. all of which is nonsense.

When talking about the possibility of increasing FF sales, the big questions is, are there going to be more shooters who appreciate the technical merits of what FF has to offer, and don't care about what APS-c has to offer. My question for you would be "why would that happen?"

Or to be more precise "Why would there be an aesthetic shift in the population favouring that style of image that FF excels at." Don't be asumming that everybody wants it. Most people don't, except maybe for their wedding pictures.

Most of the stuff posted in this forum on this topic is marketing hype, designed to convince people they need something they don't, and suggesting they give up features they've come to rely on, to get it.

---

Last edited by normhead; 07-02-2014 at 02:17 PM.

[ElJamoquio]

You were already convinced; you were just waiting for some words to reinterpret your way
I'll quote myself just so that you won't miss by mistake an important point I've made:

Indeed, a brand can change over time - but it won't change for you.

It's an interesting discussion, I must say. Hasselblad's Lunar and Stellar are given as examples of why Pentax should rebadge Sony cameras. Olympus' repeated failures on the SLR market are reasons for Pentax to jump mirrorless. Which other failures should Pentax follow?

Great! !! I don't want Pentax to change for me, or stay the same for me.

[Andi Lo]

When I see threads like this I truly expect to see discussions of FF's DoF and versatility, for possible use as a one format system for a specific type of shooter. Instead it's the same old speculation over and over again, with the success of FF depending on the demise of APS-c etc. all of which is nonsense.

Right on Norn. I fall into that category you mentioned with cheap FF body and secondhand lens. What I sorely miss from APSC is the MFD.

I've totally forgotten about the superzoom aspect of APSC, you're totally right that FF doesnt have anything as compelling as APSC in terms of superzoom. Sometimes I get stuck in my FF = DOF control mindset that I forget that other photographers shoots differently and employs different methods / lenses.

[Clavius]

Here's the thing I would really like from FF advocates, stop focussing on FF taking away APS-c users. That is not going to happen. One of my friends bought a D3200 and 18-250 for less than $700. There an FF would have t have a 24 to 400 on it to match the FoV. Not going to happen, never going to match the price.

But then a bridgecam with 30x zoom is even cheaper. And also impossible on APS-C. So why bother with APS-C then?

[ChristianRock]

I must add that, in my honest opinion, paying more for getting less is quite bizarre. An APS-C sensor is smaller then an FF sensor, and is not more complex to produce, so it should always be costing less. Otherwise you're being ripped off. But wise men guarantee me that it is possible.

Can we agree that a K-3 is quite more featured than a 6D (I'm talking features, not ISO performance...)? Then, just like a compact car with all the options is going to run at almost the same price of a full size car that is more bare-boned even though it has a bigger engine, - it would make sense that there's not that much difference in price.

[Andi Lo]

But then a bridgecam with 30x zoom is even cheaper. And also impossible on APS-C. So why bother with APS-C then?

Is there a bridgecam that has close to APSC IQ? From what I know the difference in IQ between lowend FF and APSC isnt as huge as APSC to bridgecams, but feel free to correct me.

Also you can change lenses with APSC, I dont know any bridgecams that has a interchangeable lens system.

[mecrox]

When I pre-ordered my K-3, I stopped in at he local camera store handled a D600, checked lout the specs and tests on both the 6D and D600, and came to the conclusion that even though I could get refurb D600's and 6Ds for the same money, I was better off with a K-3, The 6D can't match the K-3 in absolute resolution, and the D600 is only marginally better. And the fast 85 on the D600 while impressive, was not a better performer than my K-3.

Here's the thing I would really like from FF advocates, stop focussing on FF taking away APS-c users. That is not going to happen. One of my friends bought a D3200 and 18-250 for less than $700. There an FF would have t have a 24 to 400 on it to match the FoV. Not going to happen, never going to match the price.

You can speculate about high end users, but I've actually done the research and the math. I doubt that the 6D has converted more than a couple high end APS-c shooters. The value just isn't there.

There's a guy on the forum who has figured out exactly the parameters that would make FF attractive to a budget conscious user. Cheap body (6D or D600) Cheap fast lenses, usually second hand, lenses less than 60mm.

Most people who have invested in FF systems, many have kept their APS-c stuff. Many shoot a lot less FF than APS-c. Based on the experience of forum users, my guess is you should plan on keeping both systems, there have been some rather heart breaking posts from new FF users who didn't understand what they were losing when they sold their high end APS-c gear to purchase an FF system. Once it's gone, you'll know though.

As far as i can tell, there are two types of FF users, pros, who want a more distinctive look and are willing to pay the big bucks to get it, and people with lot's of money, who just want to believe they have the best, and who don't seem to realize, there is no "best", all their is is "best for what I'm doing right now", and that in going from APS-c to FF you're giving up "best in one situation" for best in "something else". (And one guy who says it's cheaper.)

When I see threads like this I truly expect to see discussions of FF's DoF and versatility, for possible use as a one format system for a specific type of shooter. Instead it's the same old speculation over and over again, with the success of FF depending on the demise of APS-c etc. all of which is nonsense.

I agree with lot of what you say, but then you are a rarity, a knowledgeable and discerning buyer. Most folk aren't quite so up on things. Out there perception + a shedload of marketing = reality, all too often I suspect. I'd wager that the 6D, the A7 and the D600 have taken away a lot of potential customers for high-end APS-C and not a few folks from Pentax too. We're talking about a particular segment of users here, not APS-C users in general for whom a D3200 or D5200 might be all they need or want. This segment - enthusiasts, prepared to spend quite a bit more than average, after some real quality - is or at least was one of Pentax's core markets, so far as I can see. The moment a lot of these folks no longer had to buy APS-C and were instead given a choice, they moved on. It Isn't there a message in that?

I take your point about folks running multiple systems. That may indeed be a big change in the market. However, without an FF, Pentax is missing out on all that too. For example, I know I would greatly benefit from something like a Sony A7R and a second-hand but high-quality wide-angle to capture the interiors of dimly lit, detail-laden old churches, something of a hobby. But for other things, like street photography in London, a Pentax K50 plus a DA 21mm and a DA 40mm are just the ticket and one would not want anything larger (or more costly considering the risk of camera damage is quite high in that situation).

[normhead]

But then a bridgecam with 30x zoom is even cheaper. And also impossible on APS-C. So why bother with APS-C then?

I could show you a couple of pictures where my buddy with his bridge cam of a backlit merlin got better images than I did with may K-5 and A-400 and 1.7 TC. As i said there is no "best", there is just "best right now". However, among thousands of shots we've taken in similar circumstances, that's the only instance where the Bridge camera came out on top, so there are quality issues there. When he shoots from my blind, (he likes having his own pictures,) he doesn't even pretend they are as good as mine.

Last year when I finally got my wolf after 30 years of trying, my buddy with his 200mm Canon FF prime was shooting right beside me (I was shooting with y K-5 and DA*60-250) and our pictures are practically identical. So, just from my own experience, I'd suggest you're arguing a rhetorical point not based on any experiences you've had actually taking pictures, and for no other purpose but to try and discredit the ideas expressed.

So, ya, there are times when a bridge camera is better than your expensive gear... so what's your point? We look for the best set of compromises. Based on my actually experience with birders and bridge cameras, I wouldn't recommend the bridge camera, but if you're just interested in identification, not prints, it could be great choice. Based on my experience with wildlife and FF, i'd suggest anyone start with APS-c and move up to FF if it turns out they're really good at it and might be able to sell really large size prints, for really large prices.

I'm sure if you actually thought about it for half a second, you'd say the same things.

[ElJamoquio]

I'm sure if you actually thought about it for half a second, you'd say the same things.

Friendly!

It's tough to know if you're even serious after you suggested the 6D wasn't a very good value.

---------- Post added 07-02-14 at 07:59 AM ----------

I've totally forgotten about the superzoom aspect of APSC, you're totally right that FF doesnt have anything as compelling as APSC in terms of superzoom.

It's much, much more compelling, it's just more expensive.

[Kunzite]

kadajawi:
I don't like discussing such baseless "ifs". I'm a software engineer, and assumptions are the enemy I would rather discuss the conditions necessary to make it work; the approach is different because it also implies possible solutions. For example, if right now they don't have enough (R&D, production etc) capacity to expand the K-mount with "full frame" products, the obvious solution is to expand their capacity. For this fiscal year, Ricoh allocated about 42 million USD to "increase production of digital camera, etc".

Handing over the firmware it's not as trivial as it sounds. We're talking about intellectual property here, they can't just give up on all that. Making the firmware open source (or otherwise opening it for 3rd-parties) is a huge task, and the benefits are doubtful outside a small circle.

A rebadged D810 would be a "Pentax" labelled camera with a Nikon F mount. What's the purpose? To migrate Pentax users to the F-mount?
Sorry, but a K-mount can't just appear on the D810; if you try you'll find out the body is designed for a larger registration distance, the controls and everything are Nikon style... problems which are expensive to fix. For the registration distance they'll probably need to use a hammer
Why, when Pentax is very much capable of making their own "full frame" K-mount DSLR? What's the USP in having exactly the same product as the competition, except with a hacked K-mount on it, and more expensive (because they need to pay Nikon, too)?

normhead:
"Here's the thing I would really like from FF advocates, stop focussing on FF taking away APS-c users. "
I see "full frame" as an addition to the K-mount. Instead of taking away, it will offer APS-C users an upgrade path, and new lenses to buy (regardless if going FF or not).

[eyeswideshut]

@eyeswideshut: IMHO Pentax made a mistake back then. They were in the dominant position. Canon had to fight their way up, but Pentax was already there.


Thanks to Ricoh I do think Pentax has, just like Canon in the past, the long time security to establish themselves. They do not have to be too profitable. Also the professional video market is more frickle minded it seems. Gear is rented for example, so from project to project it can change.

---------- Post added 02-07-14 at 13:56 ----------

Professional video is to a certain degree at least a matter of getting the software right. I reckon they could turn the K-3 into a very capable hybrid camera if they invested a bit in the software, in the right developers.


I hope when they come out with a mirrorless lens mount, they will base it on the K mount. As closely as possible, so that a mechanical adapter can give full K mount lens compatibility.


PDAF can be on the sensor these days.


And if all you care for is the low light capabilities, keep in mind that sensors keep getting better. A 12 MP APS-C camera with the latest sensor tech could do pretty nice things, let alone what can be done in a few years. Yes, FF will (probably?) be always a step ahead. But if what you want is current FF performance, then a few years down the road that is what APS-C will offer.


Pentax could also develop something like the Metabones SpeedBooster, giving you even more of what FF has to offer. FF lenses would appear as FF lenses on the APS-C camera, with the same DoF it would have on a FF camera. It would gather more light, so the low light advantages of FF would be lessened too. Mostly it'd be the viewfinder size and the resolution that would not be as good as with some FF cameras. The advantage is that you have FF and APS-C at the same time. Do you want a crop or not?


When you see someone using a product in a movie these days, that is because the company making the product has paid the producers of the movie to show the product.


Pentax could easily do that, if they had the marketing budget. Heck, they could make a "pro" studio photographer in a movie use a Q with enough budget (as long as they can find a director that doesn't think it would ruin the movie for being not believable enough).


The image of a brand can of course change. That's what brands do, what they put effort into. Mercedes was the rich old folks car brand. Look at their cars now. They are shooting for young professionals, and when I think Mercedes these days I don't think grandpa anymore.


Telling something to Pentax... good luck. I've reported a K-5/K-3 bug on these forums (for lack of contact information), and no one cared. Or what about the wishes for enabling the option to use SR on the K-3? Just giving a second shake reduction option, that is more or less already implemented in the camera. Pentax didn't bother at all.

Pretty long post Kadajawi!
I do not know why Pentax didn't seize the opportunity to establish itself as a pro brand in 35mm when they had the chance. It might have been MITI that directed manufacturers to concentrate on certain segments of the market. That sort of thing was common in the 'Japan Incorporated' of the time. However that may be, the fact of the matter is Pentax is not perceived in the public mind as a brand that the pro's use. That does not preclude Pentax cameras offering professional features, or even getting more professional in the future. But to reach the status of even Canon, let alone Nikon will require a major effort with very uncertain results as it would be akin to a declaration of war - and I wouldn't expect Nikon to just roll over and play dead either.
Yes brands can change their image - but is the Pentax image that bad? Does it need improving? Do some Pentaxians feel like the Rodney Dangerfield of photography - that would definitely need changing

What puzzles me a little is that you seem to argue for a major attack on the big guys in the name of 'professional' but do not want a Pentax ff. Is that correct?
Personally, I think APS-C is great and for my taste there is absolutely no reason to go with a larger sensor to have narrower dof or marginally less noise etc.
The smaller formats are good enough now and getting better.

BUT, there is one area where ff really does add something for me that you cannot (easily) get with a smaller sensor and with no dslr currently in production - and that is the viewfinder. I have said this before, the ovf is the final frontier of the dslr. Manufacturers have given us sub par finders for decades in the interest optimizing autofocus and saving some money.

Yes, the K3 gives 100% coverage with .95 magnification - but unfortunately the sensor's 'crop factor' applies to the viewfinder too. So compared to the finder on an old Pentax MX, effective size is only 0.63. Even a top of the line Canon 1d only gives an effective size of 0.76 of the MX. Pretty strange huh?

That would be the area where I would want Pentax to make it's mark.

[rawr]

I see "full frame" as an addition to the K-mount. Instead of taking away, it will offer APS-C users an upgrade path, and new lenses to buy (regardless if going FF or not).

Exactly. Ideally, I'd like a K-mount kit comprised of bodies for specific tasks that reflect their strengths: one FF body, for better low-light IQ - and AF - when shooting gigs and events; and another APS-C body for wildlife, general shooting, and as a backup. That sort of thing. All on the same mount, all with similar menus and ergonomics.

I understand that sort of setup is quite common in Canon and Nikon shooter land, and I can see the merits of it.