[fuent104]

As for this thread, we have a bunch of folk who don't seem to get what's what at the moment. We just saw a successful kickstarter for a $9 computer and Lomography Has secured their second Petzval Lens success. Mass marketing success, they are not, but they are still good signs for an overall viability of this concept. Electronics get less expensive with each iteration. That said, maybe I should take this to Lomography and Zenit, and make the Zenit-E rise from the grave as a digital instead, they seem more willing to try things...

I agree, Lomography might be the company to do this.

[biz-engineer]

Would the cheap Pentax full frame be using the concept of the new Leica Q ?

[Fogel70]

Would the cheap Pentax full frame be using the concept of the new Leica Q ?

That would not be a Pentax, it would be a Ricoh GR with FF sensor.

[RobA_Oz]

They can't. It's not the same. It's not the same competing with an inefficient Hasselblad or PhaseOne, or competing with the much higher volume Canon/Nikon, and money-wasting Sony.
The 645z's price is explained by circumstances unavailable on the small format market: higher volumes, being the only ones able to share R&D/production facilities/distribution network etc with a much higher volume product line.
Instead of saying the 645z is much cheaper I would say, the competition is so much more expensive.

I agree with your basic analysis, although I'm not sure whether Hasselblad and Phase One are inefficient, looking to achieve a satisfactory RoI from a low production rate or simply pricing to what the market will stand.

Hgh volume production can provide marginal cost reductions through scale of operations, and through purchasing power, but even then there are limits to what savings can be achieved. Maximising plant capacity is important, but when you have to add more capacity, it gets expensive if you don't run the extra capacity to its fullest extent. That's why platform sharing is so important in automotive production. The only way a small manufacturer like Ricoh's camera division can achieve those benefits (aside from badge-engineering someone else's product) is to use common technologies across a number of products. So, it's still possible that a cheaper Pentax 35FF body could be produced, but whether or not it's able to be regarded as "cheap" is another matter entirely.

[Clavius]

Hmmm... another thread with a good suggestion and the usual nay-sayers. I keep remembering the same type of nay-sayers booooooh-ing ideas like MILC, MILC+FF, MILC+FF+SR, AF adapters, etc. Now look at what Sony has done. I often think their R&D lurks this forum for ideas. People can make fun of such ideas all they want, but sooner or later Sony will do just this first if the other brands wait long enough.

SR costs a lot in a parts and often works counterproductive. (When shooting from a tripod. I even have examples where it wrecked handheld shots.) Leaving it off would not hurt.

Same goes for the whole mirror, mirror mechanism, focussing screen, prism, VF optics and all the manual calibration that needs to be done in the factories.

WR can go too. It's either no WR or WR that fails anyway, but adds a lot to the costs of camera and lenses. I'll use a baggy with an elastic band like I do now with my WR K-3 and WR lenses.

AF is to useful to leave out though. Without it, it would become a niche product, only pushing the price up.

Same goes for WIFI/NFC. The parts are dirt cheap anyway. And a 2015 camera wihout internal connectivity is unthinkable.

[Rondec]

Hmmm... another thread with a good suggestion and the usual nay-sayers. I keep remembering the same type of nay-sayers booooooh-ing ideas like MILC, MILC+FF, MILC+FF+SR, AF adapters, etc. Now look at what Sony has done. I often think their R&D lurks this forum for ideas. People can make fun of such ideas all they want, but sooner or later Sony will do just this first if the other brands wait long enough.

SR costs a lot in a parts and often works counterproductive. (When shooting from a tripod. I even have examples where it wrecked handheld shots.) Leaving it off would not hurt.

Same goes for the whole mirror, mirror mechanism, focussing screen, prism, VF optics and all the manual calibration that needs to be done in the factories.

WR can go too. It's either no WR or WR that fails anyway, but adds a lot to the costs of camera and lenses. I'll use a baggy with an elastic band like I do now with my WR K-3 and WR lenses.

AF is to useful to leave out though. Without it, it would become a niche product, only pushing the price up.

Same goes for WIFI/NFC. The parts are dirt cheap anyway. And a 2015 camera wihout internal connectivity is unthinkable.

I don't think the OP asked for those things you mention to be left off the camera. He asked for a camera without video, GPS, pop up flash and wi fi. He wanted it to remain an SLR.

There are three different groups on the forum. One (which you belong to) want Pentax to come out with a Sony style A7 knock off -- mirrorless and a different mount. That seems unlikely to happen based on what Pentax has said and it certainly wasn't what this thread is about. The second group wants a traditional SLR, but leaving off extraneous features that they personally don't use -- GPS, SR, pop up flash, video -- on the belief that leaving these particular features off would lead to a cheap full frame camera. I don't really buy their cost analysis, but either way, they certainly aren't clamoring for mirrorless or, a new mount. The third group (of which I am a member) believes that Pentax needs to have something special with their full frame camera and that it should be highly specified and have some features that current Canon/Nikon don't offer. That means SR in the body and all of the different uses it has been put to (astro tracking, SR, composition adjust, etc), really good auto focus, and top end video. This is the sort of camera that won't be cheap, but could make a big splash.

I don't buy that weather sealing and SR add that much cost to this camera and they are the sort of features that fit really well with the group of cameras that Pentax has made over time.

Pentax isn't going to suddenly morph into Sony -- it doesn't fit with who they've been in the past or who they want to be going forward. It will be better for them to figure out how to make a camera that fits with their current line up and then spend a little in marketing to let photographers know what they've done. I, for one, think it will succeed.

[Kunzite]

I agree with your basic analysis, although I'm not sure whether Hasselblad and Phase One are inefficient, looking to achieve a satisfactory RoI from a low production rate or simply pricing to what the market will stand.

Hgh volume production can provide marginal cost reductions through scale of operations, and through purchasing power, but even then there are limits to what savings can be achieved. Maximising plant capacity is important, but when you have to add more capacity, it gets expensive if you don't run the extra capacity to its fullest extent. That's why platform sharing is so important in automotive production. The only way a small manufacturer like Ricoh's camera division can achieve those benefits (aside from badge-engineering someone else's product) is to use common technologies across a number of products. So, it's still possible that a cheaper Pentax 35FF body could be produced, but whether or not it's able to be regarded as "cheap" is another matter entirely.

Perhaps 'inefficient' was a poor choice of words; what I meant by that is having to spread out fixed costs over a very small production&sales volume (I doubt they're selling more than 5000 units per year). I'm not talking just about production, in fact perhaps production is the part that can cope quite well with low volumes - but for example a world wide distribution&support network should have a significant impact on them.

I guess we're pretty much in agreement. One mention though, we already know - but some of us still can't accept this - that the Pentax FF DSLR won't be the cheapest.

[Clavius]

I don't think the OP asked for those things you mention to be left off the camera. He asked for a camera without video, GPS, pop up flash and wi fi. He wanted it to remain an SLR.

The OP has a general idea and his version of how to come to that goal and requests opinions. I have my own opinion on how to achieve an affordable but functional camera. Notice that this is a forum topic, not a poll where only yes/no can be selected.

There are three different groups on the forum. One (which you belong to) want Pentax to come out with a Sony style A7 knock off

Nope, why not just get an A7 then? I belong to your third category, it should have something special. Wether if they make an FF DSLR, or A7 clone, it should have something different but very useful. I am of the opinion that a very affordable FF camera is actually very special. It doesn't exist yet. And it enable them to sell to a group of the market that currently doesn't even have access to such cameras.

Also, note that in Medium-format world, the 645d and 645z actually are the affordable versions. That worked out very pretty well.

Anyway, if you say the FF Pentax should have something special, then I'm all for it. But what do you think that that special thing could be?

Pentax isn't going to suddenly morph into Sony -- it doesn't fit with who they've been in the past or who they want to be going forward.

Pentax was both very innovative and all about small form factor, in the past. They had a huge head-start in those areas. If they had kept that up, Sony would have had nothing on Pentax. If anything, Sony took a good long look at Pentax past philosophy and outdid them.

[beachgardener]

1- No video. 2- No flash. 3- No built-in GPS. 4- No WiFi 5- No touch screen 6- No flipped screen 7- No PS. Just put 24mp sensor inside a body that has Pentax standard and this includes OV.

Yes i agree, a plain camera would be great, don't need all that other guff

digital lx perhaps

[Rondec]

The OP has a general idea and his version of how to come to that goal and requests opinions. I have my own opinion on how to achieve an affordable but functional camera. Notice that this is a forum topic, not a poll where only yes/no can be selected.




Nope, why not just get an A7 then? I belong to your third category, it should have something special. Wether if they make an FF DSLR, or A7 clone, it should have something different but very useful. I am of the opinion that a very affordable FF camera is actually very special. It doesn't exist yet. And it enable them to sell to a group of the market that currently doesn't even have access to such cameras.

Also, note that in Medium-format world, the 645d and 645z actually are the affordable versions. That worked out very pretty well.

Anyway, if you say the FF Pentax should have something special, then I'm all for it. But what do you think that that special thing could be?



Pentax was both very innovative and all about small form factor, in the past. They had a huge head-start in those areas. If they had kept that up, Sony would have had nothing on Pentax. If anything, Sony took a good long look at Pentax past philosophy and outdid them.

Sony is an electronics company. Their cameras have improved over time, but they feel very different from the type feel that Pentax gives in their cameras.

Pentax does continue to be innovative. It just happens that you don't appreciate their innovations (astro tracer, sensor shift, super resolution features). These are the sorts of things that could sell pretty well against current Canon and Nikon options.

As to why Pentax isn't going mirrorless, it isn't their strong point. It would be like if we railed at them for not releasing a range finder model. It isn't part of their history and does not work towards their strengths. If I were going to list Pentax's strengths, I would say they are (1) Good build quality (this usually includes weather sealing, but wouldn't have to). (2) Good Ergonomics. This is very person specific, but I find their cameras are designed for photographers and are easy to figure out/use. (3) In body shake reduction. This includes not just SR, but all the things Pentax has leveraged the SR unit for. (4) Small size. This has as much to do with the lenses as with the camera bodies. Honestly, this is probably one of the least important things. Smaller cameras like the K-S1 don't necessarily sell better than larger cameras, particularly if they are being used with large-ish lenses. (5) Good feature set for the price. When I look at what Pentax offers in their camera bodies at a given price point, it seems to match up well with Canon/Nikon camera bodies. I would expect this to continue with the new full frame camera.

In the end, I would rather have Pentax blaze their own path, make cameras that fit with their ethos and see how they sell, than make me-too cameras that emulate either Canon/Nikon or Sony.

[Mothballs]

I don't think the OP asked for those things you mention to be left off the camera. He asked for a camera without video, GPS, pop up flash and wi fi. He wanted it to remain an SLR.

There are three different groups on the forum. One (which you belong to) want Pentax to come out with a Sony style A7 knock off -- mirrorless and a different mount. That seems unlikely to happen based on what Pentax has said and it certainly wasn't what this thread is about. The second group wants a traditional SLR, but leaving off extraneous features that they personally don't use -- GPS, SR, pop up flash, video -- on the belief that leaving these particular features off would lead to a cheap full frame camera. I don't really buy their cost analysis, but either way, they certainly aren't clamoring for mirrorless or, a new mount. The third group (of which I am a member) believes that Pentax needs to have something special with their full frame camera and that it should be highly specified and have some features that current Canon/Nikon don't offer. That means SR in the body and all of the different uses it has been put to (astro tracking, SR, composition adjust, etc), really good auto focus, and top end video. This is the sort of camera that won't be cheap, but could make a big splash.

I don't buy that weather sealing and SR add that much cost to this camera and they are the sort of features that fit really well with the group of cameras that Pentax has made over time.

Pentax isn't going to suddenly morph into Sony -- it doesn't fit with who they've been in the past or who they want to be going forward. It will be better for them to figure out how to make a camera that fits with their current line up and then spend a little in marketing to let photographers know what they've done. I, for one, think it will succeed.

Last two groups here. Pentax had a history of no frills workhorse cameras beside innovative products: once again, the K-1000 was in production how long?

If Pentax stopped adding features, they'd just be like Canikon: dinosaurs. But there is an undeniable history of having one "no frills" camera.

It's not one or the other folks. We can have both.

Surprising, I know.

[jatrax]

once again, the K-1000 was in production how long?

I wonder if they had stopped the k-1000 much earlier and moved on if they would be a major player still instead of an also ran. Keeping the k-1000 was stagnation not a crowning achievement. I do not think of the k-1000 as a good thing, rather it was the camera that destroyed Pentax because they just road it down in flames.

But there is an undeniable history of having one "no frills" camera.

History means nothing. This is not Pentax anymore, it is Ricoh. And it is not 1976. Comparisons of what Pentax did 20 or 30 years ago are not really going to indicate anything about what Ricoh is going to do next year.

[boriscleto]

I wonder if they had stopped the k-1000 much earlier and moved on if they would be a major player still instead of an also ran. Keeping the k-1000 was stagnation not a crowning achievement. I do not think of the k-1000 as a good thing, rather it was the camera that destroyed Pentax because they just road it down in flames.

You Tube

You Tube

[Kunzite]

I wonder if they had stopped the k-1000 much earlier and moved on if they would be a major player still instead of an also ran. Keeping the k-1000 was stagnation not a crowning achievement. I do not think of the k-1000 as a good thing, rather it was the camera that destroyed Pentax because they just road it down in flames.

The K1000 was perhaps the camera on which one would learn photography, and then move to a Canon/Nikon

[kadajawi]

The Nikon FM2 was also made forever. Canon, Olympus etc. may also have such cameras, I don't know.

For me it is size and ergonomics that matter, however part of that is that the camera does tasks for me that are lots of manual labour. A smarter, more computerized camera would help, one that is programmable. And video/other features matter too...