[normhead]

It's not about the IQ, there's much more to it than that. I haven't bothered to read this thread and this might have already been mentioned, but if you've shot FF you'll be able to answer the question easily. If you haven't, buy a film camera and maybe a lens, shoot & print a roll of film and for $40-50 you'll know whether you want to spend a huge amount on an FF body & lenses or not.

I'm looking forward to the FF being released, the only question I'm thinking about is whether my budget is better spent on film for my LX & P67 or the FF?

Or in the cases of many of us, just think back to what you shot 15 years ago.

[philbaum]

I'm not going to tell anyone what size of camera sensor to buy - too individualized decision

1. i note that the Sony A7 is now priced below $1000 on Amazon and below $1300 with a kit lens. The point is that Sony is putting cost pressure on all makers of FF cameras. Prices are coming down on FF faster than i expected. Landscape photographers can buy inexpensive "obsolete" manual focus lenses and keep lens costs at a low level.

2. I visit art galleries a lot. It seems to me there are fewer photographic artists in galleries than there used to be. Cameras have never been better than they are today; prices for photographic art have never been this poor before. That seems to me to be supreme irony. It isn't just photographic artists that seem under-represented at galleries, the media has occasional stories of photojournalists being laid off by news organizations. Trial Hypothesis: Camera features are important to those in the profession, but not so important to the clients who buy their products.

[Ash]

Camera features are important to those in the profession, but not so important to the clients who buy their products

Very credible, and a solid inference based on what we're seeing. Art seems to take more of an abstract and hand-painted form rather than the purely photographed image nowadays.

[markku55]

I've got an EP-3 and EM5-II with touch screens, and a variety of "normal" Pentax DSLRs without... And they both have their place, but I don't think that touch would benefit DSLRs in the slightest. The camera gets unsteady the second you need to use touch. Oddly, when I switched to the EM5-II, with build in EVF, I pretty much stopped using the touch screen, and instead use it like a traditional SLR. I'm much steadier, and framing is much easier with your eye to the finder, and finger on the shutter. With the greater heft of a DSLR, a touch screen would be harder to use than just shooting the "normal" way. In my opinion at least.

With my NEX 5n or with my E-PL5 I use the touch screen more or les in street photograpy, I can stay up and the camera is hanging on my neck with the strap and the rear display is tilted upwards so that I'm like taking photograph with an old Yashica Mat or Rollei. When the object is in right position on the screen, I simply touch the screen on that point.
The other way to use tilting touch screen is example when you want to take a close up photo on some object close the ground. There is no possibility to go with your head below the ground surface, so you have to use an 90 degree loop or simply tilt the screen upwards and focus to right point by touching the screen. I don't have any macro lens for those cameras, but for Pentax I have and that's why I ask for tilting touch screen to Pentax, and same time the body should be weather resistant.
For sure, this is ONLY my opinnion, but I can not see any negative there if the screen on a DSLR is tilting and of touch screen type.

[jsherman999]

1. Prices are coming down on FF faster than i expected. ....

Welcome to the squeeze. A few of us described this current situation starting about 3-4 years ago, if I recall.

It's a good thing Pentax decided to make a ladder for K-mount, to pull in out of the aps-c DSLR squeeze trap it was in. It's really too bad they didn't start in 2010, 2011, or 2012 though, to position themselves better for what we're seeing now.

I guess they had a few too many decision-makers who either had 1) the same misconceptions of some in this forum and on dpreview - that FF was 'too risky,', or 2) cold feet, or 3) #1 as an excuse for #2.

[Omestes]

I guess they had a few too many decision-makers who either had 1) the same misconceptions of some in this forum and on dpreview - that FF was 'too risky,', or 2) cold feet, or 3) #1 as an excuse for #2.

I just think that Hoya didn't really care either way. They kept Pentax around for patents and the balance sheet. Ricoh, it seems though, want to make awesome camera stuff, and see if they can get poor little Pentax to be able actually compete.

Though I do wonder, since DSLRs are a shrinking market, so eventually there won't be room for as many players.

[ElJamoquio]

I can accept that Hoya was just trying to milk the cow for as long as possible.

Ricoh should've started a FF six months after purchasing. It's possible that happened, but if so the development cycle was very long.

[Kunzite]

A bit over 3 years for a camera which is not a mild update? I think that's reasonable.

[normhead]

Many high end cameras are on 5 year cycles.

[cfraz]

Welcome to the squeeze. A few of us described this current situation starting about 3-4 years ago, if I recall.

It's a good thing Pentax decided to make a ladder for K-mount, to pull in out of the aps-c DSLR squeeze trap it was in. It's really too bad they didn't start in 2010, 2011, or 2012 though, to position themselves better for what we're seeing now.

I guess they had a few too many decision-makers who either had 1) the same misconceptions of some in this forum and on dpreview - that FF was 'too risky,', or 2) cold feet, or 3) #1 as an excuse for #2.

Or 4) the patient (Pentax) arrived at hospital in much worse condition than initial evaluation showed. It had to be kept on an extended period of life support before undertaking major surgery.

Given Ricoh's apparent modus operandi -Ricoh contributes capital and infrastructure improvements but the Digital Imaging division must operate in the black and fund R&D and product development out of its own profits - option 4 seems a more logical choice.

I think it's telling that one of the Ricoh execs said something to the effect that he was concerned the FF announcement would be too late but was relieved after seeing the initial positive reaction.

[jsherman999]

Many high end cameras are on 5 year cycles.

A '5 year cycle' for medium format cameras includes (mostly) intentional delay to realize ROI, and folks generally are not clamoring for an upgrade to hteir $30,000 body - they like to think their 'investment' has some shelf value.

Upper-end FF (1DS, D4) has been on about a 2-3 year cycle, and that admittedly has market-padding as well.

Lower-end FF and aps-c pricing allows a purchase turnover rate that's much closer to actual development times for an up and running camera company - 1-2 years.

.

A bit over 3 years for a camera which is not a mild update? I think that's reasonable.

I think 3.5 years might be reasonable for a startup. It's far too long for a company that's already producing DSLRs and lenses and has been for decades.

No, the delay was not tech-developmental, it was probably due to a combination of things: 1) post-takeover executive direction, or lack thereof, 2) institutional inertia (executive: "I don't want to suggest a big new venture, I just want to get my bonus and retire",) and 3) indecision based on where MILC was heading.

Suffice to say their activity post-merger isn't a textbook example of a company at it's most visionary or agile.

They can make up for some of that now, maybe. I personally don't think they missed the window completely.

.

[Kunzite]

Many high end cameras are on 5 year cycles.

But the development doesn't necessarily take that long. It's not trivial either.

For the record, Samsung claimed in an interview that developing the NX-1 took about 3 years. Armchair experts who would claim that it should be done faster don't have a clue (as always).
For Pentax, the timeline appears to be:
- decision to make a FF DSLR product line: 2012 (when we were told: "First, we are discussing development of FF SLR. We are touching base with a sensor manufacturer and proceeding the process of development towards production.")
- development time: 3+ years
- scheduled launch: by the end of 2015
It all fits.

[jsherman999]

Or 4) the patient (Pentax) arrived at hospital in much worse condition than initial evaluation showed. It had to be kept on an extended period of life support before undertaking major surgery.

Doubtful. Ricoh does M&A, they know how to do due diligence and it's not possible for there to be significant 'surprises', unless there are accounting shenanigans that are hidden from everyone, illegally. They knew what they were getting. They may have underestimated the embedded Institutional Inertia that I mentioned before, but that just requires a carrot, a stick... or an axe.

---------- Post added 06-11-15 at 04:32 PM ----------

- decision to make a FF DSLR product line: 2012

Why not 2011? Or why not a follow-through on the same things they said in 2010? The excuses lose their potency after the second or third iteration.

- development time: 3+ years
- scheduled launch: by the end of 2015
It all fits.

Shrinking-violets in any boardroom or executive golf outing love your thinking - it gives them cover.

.

[Omestes]

Upper-end FF (1DS, D4) has been on about a 2-3 year cycle, and that admittedly has market-padding as well.

But this doesn't including starting from scratch. I'm not a camera engineer (or whatever they're called), but most upgrades (both APS-C and FF) are iterative, they stick a feature in, replace the sensor, perhaps through in a new chip, then ship. Pentax isn't that lucky, they need a body, they need a sensor, they need a better chip, with software, they need to hash out bugs from upscaling APS-C tech, they need to do a ton of market research... etc... If Pentax FF is successful, I wouldn't be surprised if they hop on a 3-5 year cycle, probably alternating with their APS-C models.

[jsherman999]

But this doesn't including starting from scratch.

They're not. They are far, far from starting from scratch - that was my point.

A FF DSLR is not a new product category - it is an iteration of an aps-c DSLR, with a larger sensor, VF housing, mirror box, etc. Pentax has been making DSLRs for 10 years, SLRS for decades before that. The software is all a shared base. Nikon has said that their SW in all their DSLRs is essentially the same, with some modules simply enabled, disabled or left out depending on the model, and with UI tweaks.

A new product - a start-from-scratch effort - might be something closer to a MILC FF body and mount, although Ricoh has experience there already.