[Wired]

Source? Asahi man said so
According to him, Pentax had a 24MP project/prototype but that was cancelled. I don't remember him saying that it will be a 36MP.

so not official. thanks

[Gimbal]

IMO it would be a great achievement if they can push the price down on the FF, so it ONLY cost twice as much as a similar specified APS-C camera.

I believe the only reason for them to cost twice as much is because that's what people are willing to pay.
Sure the penta prism is slightly larger, but they have been around since the fifties or something.
Shutter is slightly more expensive due to larger movement means more power needed.
The body, they have designed several bodies before, shouldn't cost more than for an APS-C beside slightly more material.
Bigger buffer and even more cpu-power needed, yes that will add some cost.
Sensor will also add cost.
New SR version, they have already done several versions.

So yes it will be more expensive to manufacture, but the cost for the consumer is raised as high as they think they can get away with. And currently that is pretty high.

[monochrome]

I don't doubt that the camera will be the best bang for the buck in it's class. But I don't see it being cheaper than it's competitors beating out previous generation models which a lot of people seem to be comparing it to.

(ie: well the discontinued D800e is this price)

In April 2013 Jim Malcolm told me and a few others in a teleconference the Pentax value proposition had changed from good features at a lower price to better features (than the competition) at the same price, and emphasizing the Pentax Ethos (DNA, difference, whatever we call it) as the brand differentiator. That is a critical change in strategy. I believe those who want this to be a low-price / features-laden camera aren't aware of (or refuse to accept) the strategy change. Saying, "Pentax has always been a low-price competitor" may well be accurate, but it only reports the past - it does not accurately project the future. The Hoya strategy ended in fall 2011.

If that is all correct then we should expect one (or more) of three FF camera bodies:

1. Your D81x price point competitor with MORE FEATURES and better spec's (fully professional) in at least some of the major categories - AT THE SAME PRICE
2. D75x competitor with MORE FEATURES and better spec's (FF K-3) in at least some of the major categories AT THE SAME PRICE
3. D6!x competitor with MORE FEATURES and better spec's (FF K-50) in at least some of the major categories) AT THE SAME PRICE

I don't know which camera this will be, but I think from hints by certain posters the opening salvo will be the high-end camera.

If this logic isn't convincing - if [EDIT: you - not the Quoted poster] someone says you won't buy the first camera under any circumstances - then you won't buy the camera.

And I give up.

[Wired]

In April 2013 Jim Malcolm told me and a few others in a teleconference the Pentax value proposition had changed from good features at a lower price to better features (than the competition) at the same price, and emphasizing the Pentax Ethos (DNA, difference, whatever we call it) as the brand differentiator. That is a critical change in strategy. I believe those who want this to be a low-price / features-laden camera aren't aware of (or refuse to accept) the strategy change. Saying, "Pentax has always been a low-price competitor" may well be accurate, but it only reports the past - it does not accurately project the future. The Hoya strategy ended in fall 2011.

If that is all correct then we should expect one (or more) of three FF camera bodies:

1. Your D81x price point competitor with MORE FEATURES and better spec's (fully professional) in at least some of the major categories - AT THE SAME PRICE
2. D75x competitor with MORE FEATURES and better spec's (FF K-3) in at least some of the major categories AT THE SAME PRICE
3. D6!x competitor with MORE FEATURES and better spec's (FF K-50) in at least some of the major categories) AT THE SAME PRICE

I don't know which camera this will be, but I think from hints by certain posters the opening salvo will be the high-end camera.

If this logic isn't convincing - if you say you won't buy the first camera under any circumstances - then you won't buy the camera.

And I give up.

Option 1 is what I'm betting on as well and hoping for.

[Kunzite]

so not official. thanks

Indeed. The 36MP is just a "best guess" based on available sensors.

[Pål Jensen]

I believe the only reason for them to cost twice as much is because that's what people are willing to pay..

Sorry, but pricing doesn't work that way. They charge what they have to in order to cover cost and return a profit and hope people are willing to pay....

---------- Post added 03-13-15 at 01:41 AM ----------

In April 2013 Jim Malcolm told me and a few others in a teleconference the Pentax value proposition had changed from good features at a lower price to better features (than the competition) at the same price, and emphasizing the Pentax Ethos (DNA, difference, whatever we call it) as the brand differentiator. .

...but this change started during the 90's with the first Limited lens that was testing ground for more expensive Pentax equipment. At least that was what the distributors were told.

---------- Post added 03-13-15 at 01:43 AM ----------

[*]Your D81x price point competitor with MORE FEATURES and better spec's (fully professional) in at least some of the major categories - AT THE SAME PRICE[*]D75x competitor with MORE FEATURES and better spec's (FF K-3) in at least some of the major categories AT THE SAME PRICE[*]D6!x competitor with MORE FEATURES and better spec's (FF K-50) in at least some of the major categories) AT THE SAME PRICE[/LIST].

I would be very surprised if we see more than one FF body in the line-up in the next 5 years......

---------- Post added 03-13-15 at 01:45 AM ----------

Indeed. The 36MP is just a "best guess" based on available sensors.

They did say in recent interview that the "suitable" mp count for a sensor in a Pentax FF camera have increased lately.

[SimplyCreativePhotography]

I believe the only reason for them to cost twice as much is because that's what people are willing to pay.
Sure the penta prism is slightly larger, but they have been around since the fifties or something.
Shutter is slightly more expensive due to larger movement means more power needed.
The body, they have designed several bodies before, shouldn't cost more than for an APS-C beside slightly more material.
Bigger buffer and even more cpu-power needed, yes that will add some cost.
Sensor will also add cost.
New SR version, they have already done several versions.

So yes it will be more expensive to manufacture, but the cost for the consumer is raised as high as they think they can get away with. And currently that is pretty high.

The cost is not in the slightly larger/faster/bigger parts, but in the engineering and re-tooling that goes into ANY new part. Whether it's for a FF or a Q, every time you have to re-design something, it costs a lot of $$. The price is dictated by the volume of units they want to amortize the cost over. So if Ricoh decides to amortize the new engineering and retooling of a new Penta Prism or shutter over this run of FF's, then it will be expensive. If the bean counters and marketing folks agree to do it over the next two or there series of FF's, then they can be very competitive on the price without sacrificing quality. We really won't know until it released. The marketing folks will want to spread the cost over many versions of their upcoming FF's, the accounting folks will be much more conservative. The final pricing will be an interesting window into who's actually running Ricoh/Pentax.

[Nakedgun]

So many, who have been long crying about Pentax not keeping up/losing customers because they had no FF, are now unwilling to pay for the cost of that for which they pined.

"Be careful what you wish for..."

[kooks]

Please explain why Ricoh needs to grow the [Pentax FF] market fast.

ummmmm maybe..because they are already 9+ years behind their competition?? and they have 0 market at this time.....

In April 2013 Jim Malcolm told me and a few others in a teleconference the Pentax value proposition had changed from good features at a lower price to better features (than the competition) at the same price, and emphasizing the Pentax Ethos (DNA, difference, whatever we call it) as the brand differentiator. That is a critical change in strategy. I believe those who want this to be a low-price / features-laden camera aren't aware of (or refuse to accept) the strategy change. Saying, "Pentax has always been a low-price competitor" may well be accurate, but it only reports the past - it does not accurately project the future. The Hoya strategy ended in fall 2011.

I imagine thats why the K3 cost now $730 and the K50 $395 ... i dont know but if what you say is correct, the K3 should cost ( at this time ) almost the same as the D7100, something around $1000. Looks like good prices are still a way that Pentax do things in order to get more costumers. Im not sure if having a FF camera will change that, what we are sure is that having the FF camera is a way to tell actual and new clients that Pentax have a path.. all the way from entry level to FF and even MF something that many people complained in the past and that was a reason for new clients to buy other systems.

But all this are just simple speculations, at this time we dont know almost nothing about what will happen.

[Gimbal]

Sorry, but pricing doesn't work that way. They charge what they have to in order to cover cost and return a profit and hope people are willing to pay....

That calculation gives you a minimum price, but that is not the necessarily the same as the selling price.

[Barry Pearson]

I imagine thats why the K3 cost now $730 and the K50 $395 ... i dont know but if what you say is correct, the K3 should cost ( at this time ) almost the same as the D7100, something around $1000. Looks like good prices are still a way that Pentax do things in order to get more costumers. Im not sure if having a FF camera will change that, what we are sure is that having the FF camera is a way to tell actual and new clients that Pentax have a path.. all the way from entry level to FF and even MF something that many people complained in the past and that was a reason for new clients to buy other systems.

One group of people that Ricoh must surely want to quickly influence with a new FF camera are the "independent commentators". People at Imaging Resource, Luminous Landscape, many technical media resources, experienced reviewers, etc. These people will help create a view about whether or not Pentax has a future in FF, whether they have a forward path from APS-C cameras, etc.

If Ricoh only bring out one FF camera initially, the way to get the best from these commentators is to first bring out a high-specification camera, perhaps with the occasional novel feature. These people will then have little doubt that Ricoh can later develop lower-specification, models, if they choose. Everyone knows that Pentax is capable of developing attractive entry-level and affordable cameras.

But if the first Pentax FF dSLR is a lower-specification model, there will remain doubt about whether Ricoh is capable of developing a convincing high-specification model, or willing to do so. Moving down the range is easier and more likely than moving up the range. So the most convincing case will be made by starting at the top.

I think this will apply to the existing user base too. If the first model is lower-specification, those users who are prepared to spend money to get a high-specification FF camera may defect, because there may mot be a Pentax model on the way. If the first one is high-specification and too expensive for many existing K-mount users, they are likely to wait. There is less risk of defection, because if they are not willing to buy an expensive Pentax FF camera, they are unlikely to want to pay all the price of defecting, including all the extra lenses, etc.

[kooks]

One group of people that Ricoh must surely want to quickly influence with a new FF camera are the "independent commentators". People at Imaging Resource, Luminous Landscape, many technical media resources, experienced reviewers, etc. These people will help create a view about whether or not Pentax has a future in FF, whether they have a forward path from APS-C cameras, etc.

If Ricoh only bring out one FF camera initially, the way to get the best from these commentators is to first bring out a high-specification camera, perhaps with the occasional novel feature. These people will then have little doubt that Ricoh can later develop lower-specification, models, if they choose. Everyone knows that Pentax is capable of developing attractive entry-level and affordable cameras.

But if the first Pentax FF dSLR is a lower-specification model, there will remain doubt about whether Ricoh is capable of developing a convincing high-specification model, or willing to do so. Moving down the range is easier and more likely than moving up the range. So the most convincing case will be made by starting at the top.

I think this will apply to the existing user base too. If the first model is lower-specification, those users who are prepared to spend money to get a high-specification FF camera may defect, because there may mot be a Pentax model on the way. If the first one is high-specification and too expensive for many existing K-mount users, they are likely to wait. There is less risk of defection, because if they are not willing to buy an expensive Pentax FF camera, they are unlikely to want to pay all the price of defecting, including all the extra lenses, etc.

The thing here is that I think we have 2 kind of potential buyers.. the ones that want/need something really high end and are willing to spend money on it, and the others that doesnt need something that fancy and are just worry about good IQ and some other features improved over the K3... The question here will be.. how long will one of this group have to wait for a body that fits their needs before they get tired of waiting??.. hoping that Ricoh releases something that fit their needs...

[Barry Pearson]

The thing here is that I think we have 2 kind of potential buyers.. the ones that want/need something really high end and are willing to spend money on it, and the others that doesnt need something that fancy and are just worry about good IQ and some other features improved over the K3... The question here will be.. how long will one of this group have to wait for a body that fits their needs before they get tired of waiting??.. hoping that Ricoh releases something that fit their needs...

It is easier for those people, who are willing to spend a significant amount of money to get what they want, to defect. They are also likely to be the ones who are willing to spend on the new lenses. These people are a source of profit for Ricoh if Ricoh get it right, and a risk of defection if Ricoh get it wrong.

People unwilling to spend lots of money won't provide much profit for Ricoh in the short term, and many will continue waiting until Ricoh supply what they want at some future date. (They will probably continue to post to forums for years asking "when will Ricoh launch an affordable FF?").

I query "just worry about good IQ". The K-3 and the existing lens range is capable of very high IQ. Printing at A3+ with these can be routine. Printing at A2 can be done. For example, I already print some selected photos on A2 paper cut down to panorama ratio on my A3+ printer - length of A2, width of A3+. How many of the people wanting an FF Pentax could squeeze extra IQ from their APS-C equipment?

[Kunzite]

I would add that people unwilling to spend lots of money are the most likely to not buy the camera, even if it meets their claimed price target. Why? because there will always be a cheaper camera - discontinued but still very capable models, for example. They would always have to pay more than something, for a Pentax.
While the risk of defection might be larger for high-spending customers if Ricoh would do it wrong, it's larger for low-spending customers if Ricoh would do it right.

I cannot agree with the idea that Pentax should raise their market share, fast, with their first FF DSLR. (I'd rather think the primary tool in raising market share have to be the higher volume APS-C). Significantly raising market share, i.e. getting newcomers and other brands' users is the most difficult thing to do - they would need to offer something better, at a lower price. They would need a line-up of affordable lenses, including a second hand market (how would they do that?), and including a line-up of high-end cameras and lenses (if only to reassure said users that there is an 'upgrade path').
Instead of that, Pentax would rather think of making a camera which works with an incomplete system i.e. targeted at the loyal Pentax users, and build on that. This is just the beginning, let's not forget that.

[monochrome]

...but this change started during the 90's with the first Limited lens that was testing ground for more expensive Pentax equipment. At least that was what the distributors were told.

I was referring to the deviation from that path taken by Pentax Corp (which wanted to move to the volume model to defend itself against SPARXX) and Hoya, which just wanted to liquidate inventory on hand by offering cheap prices in the USA. Japan and EU I think had more normal marketing strategies that were 'interrupted' by corporate actions. I suspect Dealers in the USA were told something different than Dealers in EU.

I would be very surprised if we see more than one FF body in the line-up in the next 5 years......

If that is truly the plan that brings more credence to the idea this camera must be a high-spec, low volume, high-price device - a 645Z jr.

Certainly not a product designed and priced to 'rapidly grow market share'.