[kooks]

I think Ricoh will prefer to continue selling new APS-C bodies and lenses to those 43%. Only way they can make a profit on them.

Could be, but the problem is that this target is the one that is leaving the brand more often in order to shoot D610s and A7s..

[monochrome]

Could be, but the problem is that this target is the one that is leaving the brand more often in order to shoot D610s and A7s..

Will you kindly cite your sources for all these assertions? Internet anecdotes are entertaining and all but your constant insistance that you are right (and thus perhaps Ricoh will get it wrong) does nothing but build up a Goggle Search priority for this thread.

So - please - show us your real, carefully crafted and repeatable market studies that support your points.

[jonby]

Another thing to mention: the potential benefit to Pentax sales of a FF camera is not just going to be about how many FF cameras or FF lenses are sold - it's much more than that. It's about removing one of the key obstacles to Pentax being perceived as a fully serious, fully committed, fully competitive camera system. If the release of the FF results in greater sales and profits for Pentax, I suspect that the bulk of this will be through increased sales of their APS-C line cameras and lenses rather than through sales of the FF camera or lenses. Rightly or wrongly, many people either thinking of buying into a system, or considering their next move within a system, will feel more confident about doing this if the 'ceiling' is that bit higher, and if investment seems to be being made. No-one wants to pour money into a system that ends up being a dead end.

In other words, what I'm suggesting is that the specs and pricing of the FF will be based on how it will modify perceptions about the brand and influence sales in general rather than just be judged to maximize sales of the camera itself. A no-holds-barred, spec-topping beauty costing more than the D810 may hardly sell at all, but could result in a lot of people investing further in the brand or buying into it at a lower level, which is likely to more than compensate for losses made on the FF.

Others may draw different conclusions, but based on this premise, I do think that a more 'aspirational' model at the higher end would be the right move - unfortunately for me, since I wouldn't be able to afford it! However, I will be more likely to buy a K-3 and a D-FA 24-105 f/4.

[SimplyCreativePhotography]

I'm looking for something in the $2k (or sub $2K) range. They need to buy market share. The Pentax faithful will upgrade at that price and the people tire-kicking FF's will take a serious look at Pentax once they start considering things like usability, weather sealing, native DNG, in-body stabilization etc. The "pro's" have already gone elsewhere or upgraded to a 645Z. But give the enthusiast's 8+fps in a weather-sealed body with in-body stabilization, an articulating screen, wifi, and half decent auto-focus under $2K and you might just have something that you can sell in volume.

[kooks]

Will you kindly cite your sources for all these assertions? Internet anecdotes are entertaining and all but your constant insistance that you are right (and thus perhaps Ricoh will get it wrong) does nothing but build up a Goggle Search priority for this thread.

So - please - show us your real, carefully crafted and repeatable market studies that support your points.

Do you have carefully crafted and repeatable market studies that show the contrary?? Obviously I dont have studies, Pentax should have them somewhere but surely not available to the public, i dont know why is so hard to understand, that for enthusiast shooters whenever you have the K3 there is no more that you can move on (once again 645Z doenst count), yes, getting some glass could help, but sometimes that would not be enough..

Pentax high-end APS-C shooters are not used to pay more than the $1300, we never had something higher (besides MF) .. Do you really think (we gotta use some logic here ), do you REALLY think, that this APS-C shooters are going to buy a $3000 body + lenses?? NO.. they dont look for something that fancy at start, they look for a camera that can delivere good images with a FF sensor ( shallow dof + good low light, etc).. after buying this camera they look for something better, following the normal path.. Same as most people do.. you start with something basic, and start going up, thats the normal path, perhaps some people will jump this path and go to the top high end FF, but thats not what generally happens.

So no, I dont have the studys or market reports, but i can bet you that most people that left the brand in order to shoot FF didnt buy the D810 or the 5Dmk3 at start.. they got something like D610s or A7's, perhaps some 6Ds, and perhaps some of them D750... after that they got the high end models ( if they thought it was nessesary ).. is not a matter of market studys, is just a matter of logic.

Perhaps im wrong, i never said that im 100% right, i can totally be wrong, but thats what I think, and is my experience, my friends that shooted with Pentax and left the brand thats how they did it... but, that could be just my experience and not everybodys.

[jatrax]

They need to buy market share. The Pentax faithful will upgrade at that price and the people tire-kicking FF's will take a serious look at Pentax once they start considering things like usability, weather sealing, native DNG, in-body stabilization etc.

That is classic business technique, what Nikon and Canon and Sony do. Ricoh does not work that way. Look at how they have built their other business lines. Quietly deliver a superior product at a very slightly better price with very slightly better features. No marketing, no fanfare. Just produce and sell, at a profit. No big ad budget. No big inventory. And it looks like nothing is happening until 10 years later and the other guys wake up to see Ricoh has eaten their lunch.

[SimplyCreativePhotography]

When I entered the digital era, I upgraded as Pentax did. (K10D to K20D to K7 to K5) I stopped at K5 because I shoot stock photography and couldn't justify a K3. So the K? will be a stretch for me if it is over $2K because in the stock photography world, the extra MP's aren't as important as they were a few years ago. There are other "wants" that the new FF may be able to satisfy, but from a purely ROI point of view, it will be more difficult to justify now than it would have been 3-4 years ago.

---------- Post added 03-01-15 at 05:32 PM ----------

That is classic business technique, what Nikon and Canon and Sony do. Ricoh does not work that way. Look at how they have built their other business lines. Quietly deliver a superior product at a very slightly better price with very slightly better features. No marketing, no fanfare. Just produce and sell, at a profit. No big ad budget. No big inventory. And it looks like nothing is happening until 10 years later and the other guys wake up to see Ricoh has eaten their lunch.

I don't disagree with you, but Pentax has been packing a "bag lunch" lately. I'm really hoping that Ricoh will make an investment in quality and features that will catch others by surprise.

[monochrome]

Adam said it best - it doesn't matter what thhey release, just get it out there. We don't have any idea what the facts are and what the market will support, nor what Pentax "should' do. By your reasoning they SHOULD go back to pre-MAP pricing so anybody can buy a Pentax. Common sense tells me that's an idea they tried already and it didn't work.

I really don't think K-3 owners are going to pay $2,000 for an average FF camera. I really think Pentax owners, recently departed former owners and a few converts will pay between $2,600 and $2,900 dollars for the coming FF, which I think will have D810-level features and a surprise or two. Asahi Man said on the other Forum yesterday it is a tank - more substantial and stronger than a K-3 and NOT the 24Mp sensor. If that's true then $2,000 isn't possible.

Ricoh really doesn't plan their business around market share as a first priority. They really are a small company with a fine but limited engineering staff and a comparatively small manufacturing capacity. A very good argument can be made that too much market share - too much volume - could actually hurt Ricoh.

But - I'm out of this thread. It has gotten old and boring.

[jatrax]

I'm really hoping that Ricoh will make an investment in quality and features that will catch others by surprise.

I doubt it. Again take a look at their other lines. They are not a really innovative company, in the sense they are going to deliver something that blows everyone else out of the water. They just make products that are a little better in some ways than the competition. The innovation is in little things that might be really useful but don't impress internet reviewers.

The quality is already there. Please compare the k-3 to any other camera remotely in it's class and I think you will find both image quality and build quality are right at the top. But I don't think you will see any real surprises coming. They don't work that way. Surprises usually mean cutting edge, and cutting edge cuts both ways. When it's a sure thing you will see a product in that category. But surprises? I don't think so. That is for companies that need 'home runs' or have big egos and need lots of media frenzy.

A very good argument can be made that too much market share - too much volume - could actually hurt Ricoh.

This ^^^. As long as the line is running and they are making a profit I don't expect to see huge gambles on new products or new investment in manufacturing capacity. They cannot afford, or don't want to take the risk, on a cutting edge product that might be a flop.

[Ash]

Adam said it best - it doesn't matter what thhey release, just get it out there

I really don't think K-3 owners are going to pay $2,000 for an average FF camera

These are somewhat conflicting remarks. Ricoh should come out with a camera that does more than just offer K-mount lens owners FF images. So it does matter what they release. They need at least a prototype that offers the specs needed in such a format to have at least some imapct in the current market before they can announce the camera. The plastic mould is their attempt to say that they are at least working on it, perhaps to appease the supposed masses of Pentaxians craving for a FF camera. But they can only take announcements so far if they haven't gotten the product in its final stages of development...

[noelpolar]

As long as it isn't much heavier then the K3…..please!

[Erictator]

Well, I think it is time to let the speculation begin that the new FF price is going to effect 645z sales since they just annouced a 645z discount bundle with lens! Heh heh...or... They finally caught up on 645z backorders... Nah.... More fun to speculate.

[Cannikin]

Pentax costumers never paid more than $1300 for a Pentax flagship body

Pentax high-end APS-C shooters are not used to pay more than the $1300, we never had something higher (besides MF).

You keep repeating this assertion, yet I (and many other Pentaxians) have a receipt from late 2010 for a certain "Pentax K-5" at a price of $1599.95...

[Ash]

It is inconceivable that a higher-end camera is expected to be sold at the same price as APS-C cameras.
Economies of scale apply, and FF-hopefuls are going to have to cough up a lot more than $1600 for a FF camera and move on from the entitled mentality that we should pay less because it's a Pentax or that we've never paid more than a certain amount.

[jatrax]

move on from the entitled mentality that we should pay less because it's a Pentax or that we've never paid more than a certain amount.

Ricoh has stated they want to be a major factor in this market. I take that to mean that pricing will be similar to the competition. So the 'bargain basement' days are over IMHO.

If you want a piece of gear with the features and quality of a D810 be prepared to pay the entry fee.

Ricoh has a slight advantage in that they spend little money on advertising. Offset by the lower volume caused by the lack of advertising. And considering they are not trying to buy market share with cheap introductory cameras, I suspect you can plan on comparable models being released at comparable prices. So figure $2,500 plus body only and maybe $2,999 with the 24-105 kit lens.