[boriscleto]

Also in your example, FF sensor at $500 the APS-c sensor should have been $200. Sensors become more proportionally more expensive as size increases.

Even that would be too high. It has been stated that the production cost of a FF sensor can be up to 20 times more expensive than that of an APS-C sensor.

[normhead]

Even that would be too high. It has been stated that the production cost of a FF sensor can be up to 20 times more expensive than that of an APS-C sensor.

Makes you wonder how the can sell 6D's and D600 for $1300, even if they are refurbs...it makes you wonder if they've made a dime on those cameras yet. If they already have enough refurbs at this point to advertise nationally to get rid of them, it also brings up huge questions about the QC on those cameras. Made worse by the fact that the first guy on the forum to get a k-3 got a defective one. For guys like me who depend on mail order, it's a 400 mile round trip drive to return a camera, that's just scary stuff.

[Pål Jensen]

Makes you wonder how the can sell 6D's and D600 for $1300, even if they are refurbs...it makes you wonder if they've made a dime on those cameras yet. If they already have enough refurbs at this point to advertise nationally to get rid of them, it also brings up huge questions about the QC on those cameras. Made worse by the fact that the first guy on the forum to get a k-3 got a defective one. For guys like me who depend on mail order, it's a 400 mile round trip drive to return a camera, that's just scary stuff.

They are entry level bodies. They have same function as the Rebel and the kit lens. They are for locking people into the system with the hope that they upgrade to something more profitable, buying lenses etc.

[normhead]

They are entry level bodies. They have same function as the Rebel and the kit lens. They are for locking people into the system with the hope that they upgrade to something more profitable, buying lenses etc.

We should post a sign..."Don't buy that 6D or D600... it's a trap."

[Rondec]

Makes you wonder how the can sell 6D's and D600 for $1300, even if they are refurbs...it makes you wonder if they've made a dime on those cameras yet. If they already have enough refurbs at this point to advertise nationally to get rid of them, it also brings up huge questions about the QC on those cameras. Made worse by the fact that the first guy on the forum to get a k-3 got a defective one. For guys like me who depend on mail order, it's a 400 mile round trip drive to return a camera, that's just scary stuff.

I think Nikon and Canon decided to put all their eggs in the full frame SLR basket and run with it. That has meant getting the price down however they can -- maybe even taking a loss on the cameras in order to get people into the system. In order to make a go of it, they have to make certain that none of their crop cameras are good enough to even challenge the 6D or D610 and that the majority of their upper end lenses are for full frame cameras.

In the end, it feels pretty desperate. I think the way to go is put out quality cameras at every level and then people will go for what they need/can afford.

[northcoastgreg]

Which leads to the next question: if the price between the D600 and K3 is virtually the same, which it was on some recent (Oct 22) sales, why would you not choose the D600 and cover all ISOs?

Because (1) I own Pentax rather than Nikon glass; and (2) I never shoot higher than ISO 2000.

I agree with Thom Hogan's point that most cameras with sensors 4/3rds or larger are "good enough." That's why I don't care much about the camera. Any camera $800 or more will be good enough for me; it's the glass that's going to make the biggest difference. And as great as some of the Nikon and Canon glass undoubtedly is (particularly in terms of numerical specs), I prefer the aesthetic capabilities of my Pentax glass to what I've been seeing coming out of Canikon land. Get whatever glass you want and can afford, and then get the camera best fit for using that glass in the manner you wish to use it. Sensor size and even brand of camera aren't all that important.

[Rondec]

Which leads to the next question: if the price between the D600 and K3 is virtually the same, which it was on some recent (Oct 22) sales, why would you not choose the D600 and cover all ISOs?

I think there are several reasons -- you own Pentax glass (in particular DA lenses), you want faster fps or, a 1/8000 second shutter speed, faster operation, better build, deeper buffer, etc.

There is a lot made of the fact that you can shoot better high iso shots with a full frame camera (which is true), but this is only when you are pixel peeping. The question is more what size you are printing/viewing at and I doubt that at most sizes that I would print an iso 6400 at, I could see a difference.

Finally, the price differential may be minimal now, but you are viewing the D600 after it has been out for awhile, while the Pentax is a new release. There will be a several hundred dollar difference in price in two to three months and that would certainly make the decision a lot harder.

[normhead]

Even $200 more for a camera you don't want, is too much to pay. I'd consider a D600 with a VR lens as capable my 18-135 (that would be prime quality between 30-50mm and excellent centre sharpness to 200mm) for $1200. If you're going to sell me what I don't want, I want it for cheaper than what I'd pay for what I want.

[cfraz]

That's because you used the extreme case instead of going for something more reasonable, like say a factor of 2.5, which is more likely closer to the actual number. He's probably including P&S sensors in his statement. Not every crop sensor is APS-c. Also in your example, FF sensor at $500 the APS-c sensor should have been $200. Sensors become more proportionally more expensive as size increases.

The 8x factor was Hogan's, not mine. So let's use your example. Every FF sensor price drop of $50 (10% seems a reasonable drop) produces a $125 drop in crop sensor price. If your FF sensor price drops just twice, your crop sensor goes from $200 to $75. I still don't buy it. A factor of 0.5 seems more realistic.

[Rondec]

Even $200 more for a camera you don't want, is too much to pay. I'd consider a D600 with a VR lens as capable my 18-135 (that would be prime quality between 30-50mm and excellent centre sharpness to 200mm) for $1200. If you're going to sell me what I don't want, I want it for cheaper than what I'd pay for what I want.

Well, honestly Norm, I have a number of full frame lenses (FA 31, 70, DFA 100, DA *200, DA *55 and my DA 40 is sort of full frame compatible). If Pentax came out with a full frame camera with 36 megapixels, I would definitely jump on it (if I have the funds at the time). On the other hand, I have no lenses that would replace my DA 15 limited. I already know that FA 31 is not nearly as flare resistant as the DA 15 and I have tried several Sigma lenses without finding an obvious full frame DA 15 replacement. Meaning that I would need to keep a K3, if only to keep shooting the DA 15.

[PBandJ]

Which leads to the next question: if the price between the D600 and K3 is virtually the same, which it was on some recent (Oct 22) sales, why would you not choose the D600 and cover all ISOs?

I actually meant 'you' as a member of the public, not 'you' as a pentaxians.
I understand there are pros and cons of each system and that it's not just sensor size. I am asking it from a shopper's point of view and the same way pentax or any manufacturer must, IMO---If I'm spending my money, why should I buy product X over Y if they are the same price.

[jsherman999]

For an article that champions APSC it's too bad he missed mentioning pentax's APSC lineup (while mentioning the M43), would've been a nice boost to Pentax. Perhaps someone could mention it to him?

He's often in the past had some bad things to say about Pentax, coming close to predicting their demise several times. When he's like that, he's persona non grata around here. When he says something nice about aps-c, he's a hero!

.

[DogLover]

He's often in the past had some bad things to say about Pentax, coming close to predicting their demise several times. When he's like that, he's persona non grata around here. When he says something nice about aps-c, he's a hero!

.

What? Thom Hogan? I thought he was quite fond of Pentax. Didn't he just write that article calling the K-3 the Pentax D400?

[monochrome]

He's often in the past had some bad things to say about Pentax, coming close to predicting their demise several times. When he's like that, he's persona non grata around here. When he says something nice about aps-c, he's a hero!

.

Just my opinion, Jay. I get out a bit and I read a lot.

He wasn't too far off the mark in his past comments about the futurre of Pentax under Hoya. Internet-only selling by Pentax might yet remain a valid distribution option, but I don't think Ricoh would permit that.

While Ricoh offers some promise by sheer size and apparent intent to build the imaging company, Pentax's current position in the USA is actually very little improved and the shortcomings of RIAC I have pointed out over the years (though several people out there have become my acquaintances) are essentially unchanged.

Thom Hogan basicly painted himself into a corner with his past comments and he is limited to silence now (a left-handed compliment in context) until RIAC is actually able to compete on the street with Sony and Oly - something they aren't yet able to do. If you don't believe me, visit any random B&M camera store, Target, Costco or internet retailer and report what you see.

Everything I have heard directly from Pentax America describes the time horizon of their goals as "intermediate term" - that is, 5 - 7 years. I've also heard they are somewhat surprised how deeply the Dealers were offended by Hoya and how hard it will be to restore retailer distributions. 20% more than last year is a big improvement in anyting you can measure - but 20% more than almost nothing is still almost nothing. You need several iterations of 20% compound growth before the actual numbers become meaningful improvement. RIAC understands what lies before them and they aren't making promises they can't keep.

I think we have a chicken and egg situation here - and there is still some question whether Hoya even left the rooster in the barnyard yard.

[jsherman999]

The reasons are too many to mention....

Actually I think John Flores named the significant ones already - the FA and DA Limiteds. There are some other sweet things that the K-3 has though.

The K-3 will give you a larger range of DOF for lenses with same DOF wide open.

This ^^ is both confusingly worded and seems to be 180 degrees from the truth. I'm honestly curious about how you came to this assertion?

With the K-3 you can shoot at 1 stop faster shutterspeed for the same DOF compared to FF.

????? I'm think I've stumbled into a Scandinavian Twilight Zone.

The fact that the K-3 has image stabilization as well with all lenses,

Yes, and that is a nice bonus for static subjects you want to shoot with low shutter speeds. If you don't do that much, it's less of a benefit. But it is a benefit.

it will give you up to 5 (FIVE) stop advantage over the D600 with ordinary lenses at the same DOF.

5 stops!! My land! (I think you'll see up to three, usually about one or two, according to users and dpreview, etc, etc. It is a nice feature because it gives it's benefit to all lenses, even old ones. It also means, though, that you can't take advantage of in-lens stabilization from Tamron/Sigma, which is going to give you another stop over in-body.)



,