[mecrox]

I think Pentax have been doing a terrible job in on-line commerce. The experiences of "web store sales" from the Black Friday sales reads like a horror movie. Much work would be needed to make this strategy work, although I agree with you it makes sense. However, I do believe buying a camera is often a tactile experience, so not being able to see the camera in person affects the decision making process. For those that know what they are buying though, price is the way to go. Amazon seems to be quite successful with this ecommerce thing ... ;-)

I was mainly reacting to a few grim experiences in camera shops here. There are a few very good ones, but there are still some which are scruffy and run-down with an old wheezer in a frayed shirt behind the counter. Or, just as bad, a bored know-nothing kid in a vast white goods shed. if I'm spending a whole lot of money, I want to enjoy an upscale experience with a salesman who knows his stuff - imho. If you control where and how your products are sold, then you control the whole retail experience. I am slightly surprised that Ricoh haven't done more with all this, including web sales and the website experience generally. It's one way to distinguish themselves from the other lot, and I'd wager that presentation really does start to matter when you are hoping to sell folks a camera and lens package costing 10K dollars or so (645z and lenses, etc.). That's not small potatoes to anyone.

[monochrome]

There are practical considerations to a FF camera beyond the old, tired DoF argument.

I suppose I think a FF sensor in a long-register dSLR has a universal advantage (not the debatable DoF advantage) using wide lenses - 24, 28, 30 (31), 35 - even 50mm and 24~70 zooms - which suggests that photographers who spend a lot of time indoors would gravitate to FF. Wedding, or Studio portrait shooters who can't internalize the 55/1.4 as an 85/1.4 (or don't have the space). Etc.

Sure, Pentax has emulated those FL's with its Limited pancakes but to keep size down they've raised the minimum aperture. Combine the darker viewfinder image with a smaller VF and lower magnification and it just becomes too tiring to shoot all day with APSc when you can do it the old way with lenses you probably already own and intuitively understand.

OK all you EVF dudes - I teed it up for you.

[GeneV]

A brand with a small market share will have even more trouble in a brick and mortar store, which is itself struggling. I agree that Pentax needs a marketing strategy which gets people looking for its products. We have had a thread for years called "are we really that rare?" We are. Stores won't solve that.

[normhead]

The problem with full frame as a wild life camera is that you need really long lenses, otherwise, you end up with a crop frame anyway. An A7s would be awesome with a 600mm lens (assuming the mount is up to it), but if you end up shooting 400mm or 500mm on both, your high iso advantage could easily vanish away into not-enough-pixels territory. Full frame's benefit assumes a comparison of a whole frame versus a whole frame of the APS-C...

Ya, and that's exactly the argument that means I'll probably never buy a full frame. So many Full Frame advocates simply ignore the kinds of issues wildlife/landscape guys face every day. Part of our business plan is to get into a 7,000 sq. kilometre park and get top quality images from places that take days to get to by canoe, but truth be told, if half your images aren't wildlife you won't sell much. People carefully go through all your images and admire the artistic shots and frozen leaves and stuff, and then buy a sunset or wildlife image.You have to have a camera that is good at both. But that being said, I've been able to do reasonably well with my 60-250 for large wildlife, so an A7s with my A-400 would probably be excellent. For large wildlife, that A-400 is often too tight on APS-c.

[mrNewt]

There are practical considerations to a FF camera beyond the old, tired DoF argument.

I suppose I think a FF sensor in a long-register dSLR has a universal advantage (not the debatable DoF advantage) using wide lenses - 24, 28, 30 (31), 35 - even 50mm and 24~70 zooms - which suggests that photographers who spend a lot of time indoors such as 'wedding' would gravitate to FF.

Sure, Pentax has emulated those FL's with its Limited pancakes but to keep size down they've raised the minimum aperture. Combine the darker viewfinder image with a smaller VF and lower magnification and it just becomes too tiring to shoot all day with APSc when you can do it the old way with lenses you probably already own and intuitively understand.

OK all you EVF dudes - I teed it up for you.

Since you mention VFs... ...
I am a huge fan of OVF... but I have to admit... the Sony EVF is good... not perfect and I will still rather have an OVF on the FF body, but considering the size factor as well, a mirrorless with EVF as Sony has... is a very, very good trade-off.

[btnapa]

A brand with a small market share will have even more trouble in a brick and mortar store, which is itself struggling. I agree that Pentax needs a marketing strategy which gets people looking for its products. We have had a thread for years called "are we really that rare?" We are. Stores won't solve that.

I agree. A new approach to marketing is sorely needed.

[jsherman999]

link : Example regarding the 1.5x sharpnesss/resolution requirement

[Rondec]

link : Example regarding the 1.5x sharpnesss/resolution requirement

How big do you have to print, Jay, before you see this 1.5x sharpness difference, particularly if you have pretty sharp lenses on your APS-C camera?

To me, if you are shooting DA limiteds or DA * lenses in their sweet spots, you are probably not likely to see this in practice.

[osv]

Full frame is the sort of thing that could be a benefit for Pentax, but if it is done wrong, it could damage the brand as well. The thing is that Pentax needs to have a camera that has specifications that are at or better than current full frame offerings from other companies and sells for a price at which Pentax can make a profit.

define "done wrong"

the ovf luddites will call it blasphemy if pentax breaks tradition with an evf, while the people who know better won't touch it if it has an ovf.

and it isn't as simple as just "ff", by the end of this year "ff" could mean 24mp, 36mp, and ~50mp.

what is the best combo that pentax should be marketing? they already have a great 24mp crop camera, and a good mf 50mp camera.

[Edgar_in_Indy]

define "done wrong".

Styling by Marc Newson.

[eyeswideshut]

the ovf luddites will call it blasphemy if pentax breaks tradition with an evf, while the people who know better won't touch it if it has an ovf.

Luddites calling an evf blasphemy? Aren't you getting your metaphores mixed up a bit

[Rondec]

I think I saw a Luddite in the streets of my small town last week destroying a Sony NEX full frame camera, but I can't be sure...

[GeneV]

How big do you have to print, Jay, before you see this 1.5x sharpness difference, particularly if you have pretty sharp lenses on your APS-C camera?

To me, if you are shooting DA limiteds or DA * lenses in their sweet spots, you are probably not likely to see this in practice.

I often print photos at 13x19" (my printer max), and with primes or DA* lenses, there is no sign I'm pushing the envelope. I wonder how many billboards we have seen in our lives shot with the equivalent of less than 24mp APS-C?

Different sites also give you different impressions about comparisons. The differences in RAW files at 100ISO between a FF 5DMkIII and a K3 on http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentax-k-3/13 take some squinting to see, and it may not go in the 5D's favor. I see about the same difference between the 1DX and the 5DMKIII (both FF) on that site. For 5 times the price of a K3, I hope the 1D offers something more than just a bigger sensor.

[Kunzite]

Sorry, but a Luddite camera has a direct finder, not a modern reflex pentaprism viewfinder:

[eyeswideshut]

I think I saw a Luddite in the streets of my small town last week destroying a Sony NEX full frame camera, but I can't be sure...

If he was cussing and swearing doing it - you actually saw a blaspheming luddite. At least now we know that such deviant behavior is OVF induced and curable by a healthy dose of Sony

---------- Post added 14-01-15 at 16:30 ----------

Sorry, but a Luddite camera has a direct finder, not a modern reflex pentaprism viewfinder:

Hmmm, just the finder I'm looking for: 100% coverage @ 1x magnification