[Kunzite]

What I want is a Pentax 135-format DSLR; which doesn't means 6 letters on the pentaprism, but a camera made in a certain way (take a look at the K-3 to see what I mean).
Why I want it:
- for a higher end camera I would keep longer (which means trying to go cheap won't work)
- for a better optical viewfinder
- to be a significant upgrade over APS-C (not that I need it ) - including resolution, so a no to the 16MP sensor idea.
What I don't want - things like a touch screen replacing buttons and dials.

[mattb123]

I don't want a touch screen but the rest of the list might be nice. I'd do it if the price was right (and the larger sensor gave use low-noise, high-iso images).

[Andi Lo]

I'd buy one if it's k10D size or smaller, and when it hits $1.5k, need to remind myself to buy the FA43 as well I'm not really concerned with any other specs, as long as it's not worse than K-5, I should be good. If it has ME super viewfinder (probably impossible), it will be instant buy for me.

It will be my for fun / creative camera body. Will stick with Nikon for paid work at the moment.

The results of the poll is not surprising... I wish selecting more than one is possible though.

[monochrome]

The probability that a Pentax FF camera with the combination of features I want (which aren't those in the poll) would intersect with $2,699 of my dollars in the next 9 months is just another rumor.

[MarkJerling]

The probability that a Pentax FF camera with the combination of features I want (which aren't those in the poll) would intersect with $2,699 of my dollars in the next 9 months is just another rumor.

Lets hear your list of features.

---------- Post added 09-25-14 at 02:08 PM ----------

I'd buy one if it's k10D size or smaller, and when it hits $1.5k, need to remind myself to buy the FA43 as well I'm not really concerned with any other specs, as long as it's not worse than K-5, I should be good. If it has ME super viewfinder (probably impossible), it will be instant buy for me.

It will be my for fun / creative camera body. Will stick with Nikon for paid work at the moment.

The results of the poll is not surprising... I wish selecting more than one is possible though.

I deliberately set it not to allow more than one choice as I wanted to see how people's priorities are weighted, sorry!

---------- Post added 09-25-14 at 02:09 PM ----------

I don't want a touch screen but the rest of the list might be nice. I'd do it if the price was right (and the larger sensor gave use low-noise, high-iso images).

I agree! Although, having got used to touch-screen on my phone, I'd be happy to have it on a camera, provided there were still a decent amount of hardware buttons too.

---------- Post added 09-25-14 at 02:10 PM ----------

What I want is a Pentax 135-format DSLR; which doesn't means 6 letters on the pentaprism, but a camera made in a certain way (take a look at the K-3 to see what I mean).
Why I want it:
- for a higher end camera I would keep longer (which means trying to go cheap won't work)
- for a better optical viewfinder
- to be a significant upgrade over APS-C (not that I need it ) - including resolution, so a no to the 16MP sensor idea.
What I don't want - things like a touch screen replacing buttons and dials.

Thanks for your comments!

---------- Post added 09-25-14 at 02:11 PM ----------

If you now ask a set of questions regarding willingness to pay Pentax/Ricoh have got very valuable information to inform their business plan for the FF. Most companies pay lots of money for such market research studies.

The reason I say this is that I've had the money sitting in a savings vehicle for the last four years. I've got photographer friends trying to persuade me to switch to Nikon, Canon and Sony. I took a look at the Sony models displayed in a local photo dealer and I was pleasantly surprised by the light weight and all the other FF features. I've not finally made up my mind but if P/R want my money they'd better hurry up. I don't need a definitive answer but if it is to be next year then some idea when next year - early or late.

You might need to tailor it to the various currency markets - Yen, $, Euro, £.

The suggestion at the end of the Photokina Interview was that they follow our Forums carefully. We've told them - we'll buy the FF and we should tell them the price we are willing to pay.

I hope they do get it out to market sooner rather than later! We've all been waiting waaaaayyyyy to long!

---------- Post added 09-25-14 at 02:25 PM ----------

Well if you believe in statistical analysis:
1 in 394 have voted with 124 saying yes. So 124*394 = 48,856 FF cameras sold!!! Come on Ricoh you have a gold mine here!!!!

Or another way to look at it: 161 people cared enough to even vote out of 63,504. And of those only 124 indicated they MIGHT buy if enough conditions were met. So .002 of members here MIGHT possibly be interested in a FF. Come on Ricoh you have 124 potential customers for FF, I cannot believe you are not rushing to get it out the door.

*Just a light hearted attempt to put some perspective on this.

Not quite that simple, but yes, I get the gist of what you're saying.

What I'm doing with the figures from the poll, is trying to use proven statistical methods to compensate for a variety of common statistical errors. These include:

• Margin of error.
• Sampling error.
• Relevance error.
• Measurement error.
• Geographical error.
• Representation error.

That's why you see my (current) results given in the format they are. One should be careful to not try to make the figures give too a precise answer. Currently (as of today) we have a sample size of 1 in 319 and a total sample of 199. If we can get the sample size up to around 500 people, or therefore under 1 in 130, that would make for much better data. Even 250 respondents improve the accuracy of the data quite a few percentage points.

---------- Post added 09-25-14 at 02:25 PM ----------

This is a very powerful analysis. I hope the P/R Marketing Unit are reading this.

I will try my best to see if I can get them to read this!

[MarkJerling]

Here's the current raw data, before crunching the numbers to get to a statistically more correct result.

This still results in roughly these outline results:

Percentage of members who would buy if new FF is a Pentax branded camera: 13-27% of members. (Between 8,000 and 17,000 people)
Percentage of members who would buy if new FF is a Pentax and/or Ricoh branded camera: 17-32% of members. (Between 11,000 and 20,000 people)
Percentage of members who would buy on the rough specifications given: 9-23% of members. (Between 5,500 and 14,500 people)
Percentage of members who would buy at a D750 price point: 4-14% of members. (Between 2,000 and 8,500 people)

Percentage of members who would buy a FF Pentax / Pentax and/or Ricoh / at roughly D750 price point / on rough specs as given: 61-77% of members (Between 21,500 and 49,000 people)

Read more at: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/273288-poll-gauge-h...#ixzz3EI6jF1Kz

[jatrax]

Percentage of members who would buy a FF Pentax / Pentax and/or Ricoh / at roughly D750 price point / on rough specs as given: 61-77% of members (Between 21,500 and 49,000 people)

Mark, I don't want to rain on your parade here but come on, 77% of PF members would buy a FF? We know the entire market for FF is less than 10%, some sources say less than 5%. Let's say that PF is a rabid hot bed of FF enthusiasts and double that to 20%. And I think that's reaching.

Your interpretation of the results is a bit optimistic, IMHO. I see no reason for members of this forum to be any more or less interested in FF than the general population of camera buyers. Which have voted with their money in the marketplace. In fact despite all the posts about FF, I would expect this forum to be LESS interested in a FF camera than the general population because anyone who genuinely needed a FF has already changed brands. Leaving only the portion of the FF crowd that want one instead of need one.

I think another equally valid interpretation is that out 65,000 odd members here only 161 cared enough about FF one way or the other to even vote. And 5 of those voted with the hopefully facetious "only if available in 47 colors".

I've used proven polling statistical methods to arrive at these figures.

Umm, no you did not. A realistic poll starts with a population and samples all entities in that population. Your poll started with a population and allowed only those entities in the population who were interested to vote.

So out of 65,000 users, 161 are interested and of those 124 would buy a FF. Maybe. I'm not saying my deliberately negative interpretation is correct, only that based on the poll as presented you can make any assumption you want.

Want a valid poll? Ask Adam to send an email to all members with a simple question: "Would you buy a Pentax FF camera?" It still will not be technically accurate but it will be more accurate than only asking those who are already interested if they are interested.

[MarkJerling]

Mark, I don't want to rain on your parade here but come on, 77% of PF members would buy a FF? We know the entire market for FF is less than 10%, some sources say less than 5%. Let's say that PF is a rabid hot bed of FF enthusiasts and double that to 20%. And I think that's reaching.

Your interpretation of the results is a bit optimistic, IMHO. I see no reason for members of this forum to be any more or less interested in FF than the general population of camera buyers. Which have voted with their money in the marketplace. In fact despite all the posts about FF, I would expect this forum to be LESS interested in a FF camera than the general population because anyone who genuinely needed a FF has already changed brands. Leaving only the portion of the FF crowd that want one instead of need one.

I think another equally valid interpretation is that out 65,000 odd members here only 161 cared enough about FF one way or the other to even vote. And 5 of those voted with the hopefully facetious "only if available in 47 colors".

Umm, no you did not. A realistic poll starts with a population and samples all entities in that population. Your poll started with a population and allowed only those entities in the population who were interested to vote.

So out of 65,000 users, 161 are interested and of those 124 would buy a FF. Maybe. I'm not saying my deliberately negative interpretation is correct, only that based on the poll as presented you can make any assumption you want.

Want a valid poll? Ask Adam to send an email to all members with a simple question: "Would you buy a Pentax FF camera?" It still will not be technically accurate but it will be more accurate than only asking those who are already interested if they are interested.

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you. A realistic poll does not necessarily start with a population and samples all entities in that population. In fact, it almost never starts with that outlook. Polling simply does not work that way. There's no way you could start with a population that includes people who have no interest in buying any camera and suggest you have to poll those people. You similarly cannot expect to run a poll with Canikon owners - You simply won't get an accurate result. Nor could you poll babies or members of the seeing eye dog society. Polling does not work that way.

Yes, of course my polling asks for answers from only those who care to vote. How do you think an election works? It collates votes only from those people who could care to vote. That's how democracy works. You don't have to believe me but, I can assure you that the upper and lower figures I give are not unrealistic - based on the data crunched already. As I have clearly pointed out, I don't have enough people taking part, at present, to make better assumptions from the data. That is why, for instance, the data says lower certainty 2,000 sales IF the price point is no more than the D750, upper certainty 8,500 people, IF the price point is no more than the D750.

We know that annually, there's currently 13,825,569 DSLR sales, worldwide. (CIPA stats) So, to use your 5% FF market segment figure, you're looking at nearly 700,000 FF sales per annum. So, you're assuming that it won't be possible for Ricoh to collar a tiny proportion of that market, over a number of years. Lets assume (and I have no data here, so this is pure assumption) that, of those members interested in buying a new FF camera, that those people would do so once in five years. So, using my completely "mad" figure of 21,500 (lower certainty) and 49,000 (upper certainty) figures who would buy a FF camera, then you're looking at, at most 9,800 cameras a year.

9,800 / 700,000 = 1.4% of the annual FF DSLR market, using your 5% figure. And, you consider those sort of percentages way over the top? The other manufacturers would sell 98.6% of FF DSLR's in the market if Ricoh/Pentax had a product in that market segment? I don't think so. So, if you consider my (admittedly incomplete) data wrong, that's your choice. But I ask that you put forth an alternative scenario rather than simply shooting down the proven statistical methods I'm employing to come up with some figures. (DSLR CIPA stats correctly given, for 2013 year) (Note too that DSLR sales are climbing while other digital camera sales are falling in relation to overall camera sales.)

[mecrox]

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you. A realistic poll does not necessarily start with a population and samples all entities in that population. In fact, it almost never starts with that outlook. Polling simply does not work that way. There's no way you could start with a population that includes people who have no interest in buying any camera and suggest you have to poll those people. You similarly cannot expect to run a poll with Canikon owners - You simply won't get an accurate result. Nor could you poll babies or members of the seeing eye dog society. Polling does not work that way.

Yes, of course my polling asks for answers from only those who care to vote. How do you think an election works? It collates votes only from those people who could care to vote. That's how democracy works. You don't have to believe me but, I can assure you that the upper and lower figures I give are not unrealistic - based on the data crunched already. As I have clearly pointed out, I don't have enough people taking part, at present, to make better assumptions from the data. That is why, for instance, the data says lower certainty 2,000 sales IF the price point is no more than the D750, upper certainty 8,500 people, IF the price point is no more than the D750.

We know that annually, there's currently between 480 and 670 million of DSLR and removable lens camera sales, worldwide. (CIPA stats) So, to use your 5% FF market segment figure, you're looking at 24,000,000 - that's 24 million - FF sales per annum. So, you're assuming that it won't be possible for Ricoh to collar a tiny proportion of that market, over a number of years. Lets assume (and I have no data here, so this is pure assumption) that, of those members interested in buying a new FF camera, that those people would do so once in five years. So, using my completely "mad" figure of 21,500 (lower certainty) and 49,000 (upper certainty) figures who would buy a FF camera, then you're looking at, at most 9,800 cameras a year.

9,800 / 24,000,000 = 0.04% of the annual DSLR or removable lens market. And, you consider those sort of percentages way over the top? The other manufacturers would sell 99.96% of FF DSLR's in the market if Ricoh/Pentax had a product in that market segment? I don't think so. So, if you consider my (admittedly incomplete) data wrong, that's your choice. But I ask that you put forth an alternative scenario rather than simply shooting down the proven statistical methods I'm employing to come up with some figures.

it's more than possible my brain is not in gear this morning but those CIPA stats you mention look wrong to me. About 13.8 million DSLRs were shipped in 2013 and around 3.3 million MILCs. The figures this year likely won't be much different though lower, particularly of DSLRs. A guess is that puts the market for FF DSLRs at around 10 per cent of the total for all DSLRs so 1 to 1.2 million a year, at present. Since camera sales are still falling, one might say that around a million FF DSLRs a year is a likely figure. It could be lower in the years ahead, more like 750,000. Even that figure could be too high since folks are also keeping their cameras for much longer than they used to and a small but increasing percentage of DSLR sales is being lost to MILCs.. We don't know of course, but however you cut it the market for a Pentax FF DSLR is pretty darn small when you shake down 750,000 to a million FF DSLR cameras to between 0 and 5 per cent, around Pentax's market share of DSLRs generally. It gets even smaller when you allow that Pentax only seem to promote their wares heavily in Japan, possibly also in Asia. In Europe and North America, they are light on marketing and pushing their products compared to the other brands.

So one yardstick could be: how many FF cameras could Pentax realistically sell in Japan and Asia? If the answer to that isn't $$$, there's a problem. It certainly looks as if the Japan + Asia axis is an important metric for Pentax. The Q and the K-S1 are both really predicated on that market, for example, and so to an extent is the 645z from what I can see.

[Sandy Hancock]

I am one of the loyal PF members who have not answered your survey, because there is no option which satisfies my opinion.
Unless a Pentax full frame offering was either rubbish, or cost over $3000, I would buy one in a heartbeat.
The FA31 on FF would replace the DA21 on APS-C, so that is one lens sold.
I would happily take the results from my DA*50-135 on APS-C compared to my Sigma 70-200 on the FF, and If I want 300mm FF equivalent, I could put my DA*300 on the FF. Duh!!
I don't know exactly how I would choose between the FA43, A50/1.2, DA*55 and FA77 between formats, but I reckon the evaluation process would be very interesting and a sale or two might ensue.
The DA35/2.8L and the DFA100WR are no-brainers.
Until a FF 24-70/2.8 arrives the DA*16-50 will have a role to play. Likewise the DA10-17, and it is known to be OK on FF beyond about 14mm anyway.

[severalsnakes]

I got silly and answered for the 47 color combo option. Honestly, I think I would buy the full frame. I acknowledge that I don't need it, and I wouldn't even say I have a strong desire for it... But it's bound to be a great performer, plus all of my lenses (except my Rokinon fish eye) are manual lenses "made for" "full frame", and I'd like to see them perform on the format. I know that when I look through a 28mm lens on my K30 versus a 28 on my ZX-L, it kind of blows my mind.

And yes, honestly, I would be much more excited to be able to order it in some sort of sexy midnight blue or high-gloss white than the flat black blob that's become the standard. I'm a photography hobbyist, not a nun. ;-)

(Also, can we keep it under $2k?)

[ElJamoquio]

We know the entire market for FF is less than 10%, some sources say less than 5%. Let's say that PF is a rabid hot bed of FF enthusiasts and double that to 20%. And I think that's reaching.

The average DSLR price is climbing every year, while APS-C and FF prices go down.

How do we 'know' that FF is less than 10%? 77% is silly right now, of course, but I think 10% is a bit low too, especially since Pentax should be building for the future rather than the past.

[MarkJerling]

it's more than possible my brain is not in gear this morning but those CIPA stats you mention look wrong to me. About 13.8 million DSLRs were shipped in 2013 and around 3.3 million MILCs. The figures this year likely won't be much different though lower, particularly of DSLRs. A guess is that puts the market for FF DSLRs at around 10 per cent of the total for all DSLRs so 1 to 1.2 million a year, at present. Since camera sales are still falling, one might say that around a million FF DSLRs a year is a likely figure. It could be lower in the years ahead, more like 750,000. Even that figure could be too high since folks are also keeping their cameras for much longer than they used to and a small but increasing percentage of DSLR sales is being lost to MILCs.. We don't know of course, but however you cut it the market for a Pentax FF DSLR is pretty darn small when you shake down 750,000 to a million FF DSLR cameras to between 0 and 5 per cent, around Pentax's market share of DSLRs generally. It gets even smaller when you allow that Pentax only seem to promote their wares heavily in Japan, possibly also in Asia. In Europe and North America, they are light on marketing and pushing their products compared to the other brands.

So one yardstick could be: how many FF cameras could Pentax realistically sell in Japan and Asia? If the answer to that isn't $$$, there's a problem. It certainly looks as if the Japan + Asia axis is an important metric for Pentax. The Q and the K-S1 are both really predicated on that market, for example, and so to an extent is the 645z from what I can see.

Sorry, yes, I was looking at the wrong figures in the stats. I've corrected my post above - thanks for pointing out the error!

---------- Post added 09-26-14 at 08:58 AM ----------

I am one of the loyal PF members who have not answered your survey, because there is no option which satisfies my opinion.
Unless a Pentax full frame offering was either rubbish, or cost over $3000, I would buy one in a heartbeat.
The FA31 on FF would replace the DA21 on APS-C, so that is one lens sold.
I would happily take the results from my DA*50-135 on APS-C compared to my Sigma 70-200 on the FF, and If I want 300mm FF equivalent, I could put my DA*300 on the FF. Duh!!
I don't know exactly how I would choose between the FA43, A50/1.2, DA*55 and FA77 between formats, but I reckon the evaluation process would be very interesting and a sale or two might ensue.
The DA35/2.8L and the DFA100WR are no-brainers.
Until a FF 24-70/2.8 arrives the DA*16-50 will have a role to play. Likewise the DA10-17, and it is known to be OK on FF beyond about 14mm anyway.

Not even one option that would make you say "yes"?

---------- Post added 09-26-14 at 08:59 AM ----------

The average DSLR price is climbing every year, while APS-C and FF prices go down.

How do we 'know' that FF is less than 10%? 77% is silly right now, of course, but I think 10% is a bit low too, especially since Pentax should be building for the future rather than the past.

I don't know where the 5% or 10% figures come from.

---------- Post added 09-26-14 at 09:02 AM ----------

I got silly and answered for the 47 color combo option. Honestly, I think I would buy the full frame. I acknowledge that I don't need it, and I wouldn't even say I have a strong desire for it... But it's bound to be a great performer, plus all of my lenses (except my Rokinon fish eye) are manual lenses "made for" "full frame", and I'd like to see them perform on the format. I know that when I look through a 28mm lens on my K30 versus a 28 on my ZX-L, it kind of blows my mind.

And yes, honestly, I would be much more excited to be able to order it in some sort of sexy midnight blue or high-gloss white than the flat black blob that's become the standard. I'm a photography hobbyist, not a nun. ;-)

(Also, can we keep it under $2k?)

Thanks for posting. Yes, as you may have guessed, I threw in the gazillion colours option more a tongue in the cheek option. But, just goes to show - not all of us likes our cameras black or silver! And good on Ricoh for realising that more than I have! I would suggest the price point will likely be above US$2,000, but my guess (and it's only a guess) would be not anywhere near the US$3,000 figure. Thanks for your vote.

[Sandy Hancock]

Yes, if it is K-mount, has an attractive feature set and is priced competitively.
I don't care whose name is on the camera.

[iCrop]

Eh, why not. I don't have enough Pentaxs...