[monochrome]

I would say I have an opinion, but at this point it would just be speculating.

But I think this camera will surprise people. I've heard things all over the map from people who I suspect should know. What's hard to tell is which is beig truthful and which is intentionally spreading falsehoods for competitive reasons.

At this time I have no strong sense of what will come.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 06-14-2015 at 06:45 PM.

[fuent104]

Their magins are probably quite high, as they selling a camera with a sensor less than a 1/3 of the size of an FF sensor for $2000. To save R&D cost they use existing mounts, so they did not have to design large part of the system from scratch. And they do not need to design lenses.

So they have much higher profit margin than if Ricoh would sell a much more complex camera design with much more expensive parts inside for half that price.


The problem is that almost every enthusiast have their own unique demands on the camera, so they either release 10000 different models so all user can get their own custom made camera with only the features they want, or the they design one camera that covers as many uses requirements as possible, and can be released at a reasonable price. Most users will never use all features in the camera, but that is normally not a problem as long as the features can be disabled.

Edit: I believe the first Pentax FF DSLR will be a high specification model, with lower specified model coming later on.

You also forgot to mention that they needed to found a camera department, hire the people to do all of the design and R&D, set up sales channels, acquire a sensor, pay to join the M43 consortium, etc. They started from scratch.

If it's easier to start building a camera from scratch than for an established camera company to build a camera and offer it at a low price...well, I find that extremely difficult to believe.

[Kunzite]

Blackmagic Design was founded in 1984.

[Na Horuk]

Basically that Ikea paper camera, with K-mount and FF?

[Rondec]

You also forgot to mention that they needed to found a camera department, hire the people to do all of the design and R&D, set up sales channels, acquire a sensor, pay to join the M43 consortium, etc. They started from scratch.

If it's easier to start building a camera from scratch than for an established camera company to build a camera and offer it at a low price...well, I find that extremely difficult to believe.

Their Wikipedia page seems to indicate that they purchased a variety of companies that allowed them to build their camera, but I don't really know. Certainly it isn't easy to design either a still camera or a video camera -- even if you have some existing patents. The market is a lot less static now and the sidelines are littered by companies that were great in the days of film and had to sell out or just go bankrupt. Pentax is, by all accounts, one of the lucky ones.

[rawr]

Basically that Ikea paper camera, with K-mount and FF?

Why don't people just make the camera themselves, like Miroslav Tichy used to?



Nowadays, with 3D laser printers and easy to use CAD software it should be easier than ever to make a home-made minimal Pentax.

[fuent104]

Blackmagic Design was founded in 1984.

They were not a camera manufacturer until they made their cinema camera.

[Kunzite]

But they were active on the video market - they have tons of video-related products - and as Rondec mentioned, they made a series of acquisitions (some of which likely helped them making a video camera). Outsourcing is also an option.

By the way, if we're talking about the Blackmagic Design Cinema MFT camera (~$2000, MFT mount), it's using a 15.81mm x 8.88mm sensor. They can get away with that (and even be considered amazing value) because that's the video market.

So I'm not exactly sure if there's a lesson related to Ricoh Imaging, somewhere in this story. From Blackmagic Design being able to release "affordable" video cameras to Ricoh Imaging presumably being able to offer a very cheap "full frame" (but refusing to do so because they're some bl*&U&^ ba(*&@#), that's a huge leap.
Besides, if margins were so high, if it were so easy everyone would've done it already. But it didn't happen, guess why?

[Simen1]

How much does Pentax save by removing function X? How many customers will the lack of that function scare away? How big are the losses from those customers not buying Pentax?

I think there is good reasons to start out with two models. One expensive and one cheaper. But i don't think its cost efficient to strip away very many features. I would rather have a 1200$ decent camera then a lobotomized 1000$ camera.

Places i think would make sense to cut costs:
- Cheaper sensor (low speed 20 or 24 Mp)
- No mirror or prism. EVF viewfinder
- Slower AF (both motor and AF-sensor)
- Lower battery capacity (will also reduce weight and size)
- Single SD slot (not much to save, but reduces size)
- No GPS (not much to save, mostly for product line separation)

One thing not to cut is Wifi. That is cheap and can convince many new customers. Phone app for camera control, recieving and distributing image should be free.

[Big Dave]

Why would people buy a totally stripped down first generation FF, When you can buy a full featured 24mp FF camera for under $1000 brand new with a warranty. It will accept all of your pentax lenses in both aps-c and FF modes with focus peeking and magnify in the view finder, as well as lenses from most other brands. Of course I am talking about the Sony A7, which would be major competition for a basic Pentax FF.

[reh321]

Why would people buy a totally stripped down first generation FF, When you can buy a full featured 24mp FF camera for under $1000 brand new with a warranty. It will accept all of your pentax lenses in both aps-c and FF modes with focus peeking and magnify in the view finder, as well as lenses from most other brands. Of course I am talking about the Sony A7, which would be major competition for a basic Pentax FF.

You would need to add the cost of an adapter for the Sony camera.

[normhead]

Because you like Optical Viewfinders and auto-exposure? The Sony isn't major competition for anything Pentax. I investigated, looked at the images folks post, read about their experiences, saw on various forums the problems that led people to sell their Sony equipment, and said to myself.. "Self, this ads nothing to your life, but would make it a lot harder."

It was close, but in the end, Sony really wasn't competition for Pentax. And still isn't.

[Big Dave]

You would need to add the cost of an adapter for the Sony camera.

They cost next to nothing on ebay. $9-17 depending on aperture ring or not.

[jeff knight]

They cost next to nothing on ebay. $9-17 depending on aperture ring or not.

I've got a box full of cheap Chinese Sony adapters. They certainly are not all created equal. I had to buy 3 k mount adapters before I got one that worked perfectly. There's a lot of crap on Greedbay.

I am a diehard Pentax fan with a K-20D, K5, and K5IIs, but I also shoot Sony NEX with my manual lenses. I could not live without my Sony cameras. They have become an absolutely crucial second system for me. You would have to be in deep denial not to realize that Sony has really taken a big bite out of Pentax sales. But hey, I still find my Pentax system to be irreplaceable! Pentax equipment is way more rugged and durable. You don't want to accidentally knock Sony cameras around, and I would never want to drop one even in the grass! No contest there.

There's no way Ricoh is going to give us a cheap stripped down FF camera. They will want to stay competitive with Canon and Nikon equivalents. People here who are expecting a cheap stripped down FF camera this fall will probably be very disappointed, but maybe someday.

[jatrax]

One thing not to cut is Wifi. That is cheap and can convince many new customers.

One thing that should be cut is the silly Wifi. I don't use it, so take it out. I hate paying for stuff I never use.

Just joking