Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-10-2010, 03:59 PM   #61
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,073
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Please, read about equivalent lenses here: Luminous landscape
I won't discuss it now.
.
I'm perfectly aware of it but it is of little value in real life photography. Trying to equalize the difference between formats is meaningless; you live with the formats strenght and weaknesses. There are DOF differences between formats just like there is quality differences. No one in the film days did similar equalization attempts between formats funnily enough.
People still buy lenses for various format from angle of view and speed (translate into shutterspeed at a certain ISO). And live wite fact that the larger the format the more pixels and less noise overall (all things equal).

08-10-2010, 04:33 PM   #62
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
Some 70 people took the time to respond to the survey (with a bit of drop-off along the way). Thank you all for your participation.
Interesting result. How can it be summarized?

To me it looks like the upgrade from APSC to FF is allowed to cost about $500, maybe a bit less (assuming a peak for APSC at $1250 and a peak for FF at $1750). It also looks like a majority would upgrade before or when FF reaches the $1500 price point. Other opinions?
08-10-2010, 05:21 PM   #63
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 959
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Interesting result. How can it be summarized?

To me it looks like the upgrade from APSC to FF is allowed to cost about $500, maybe a bit less (assuming a peak for APSC at $1250 and a peak for FF at $1750). It also looks like a majority would upgrade before or when FF reaches the $1500 price point. Other opinions?
The sample size isn't ideal, but the distribution of responses looks "normal". It tells me, given that this sample population can be taken for "Pentax enthusiasts", that Pentax customers want a lot for their money. Also, that the respondents don't want to spend a lot on lenses etc-maybe $1000. Are there profits for Pentax in a $1750 FF DSLR? Is that $1000 secondary buy attractive enough?
08-10-2010, 06:30 PM   #64
Veteran Member
arpaagent's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Raleigh, NC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 777
QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
The sample size isn't ideal, but the distribution of responses looks "normal". It tells me, given that this sample population can be taken for "Pentax enthusiasts", that Pentax customers want a lot for their money. Also, that the respondents don't want to spend a lot on lenses etc-maybe $1000. Are there profits for Pentax in a $1750 FF DSLR? Is that $1000 secondary buy attractive enough?
Most enthusiasts that are interested in the FF pentax DSLR probably already own several FF compatible lenses, and therefore would not need to spend extra money on new lenses. Maybe one or two new digitally optimized lenses, hence the extra $1000 maybe??

Just my guess on why the numbers came out like that. That's sort of how I was thinking when I took the survey.

08-10-2010, 06:32 PM   #65
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,054
QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
The sample size isn't ideal, but the distribution of responses looks "normal". It tells me, given that this sample population can be taken for "Pentax enthusiasts", that Pentax customers want a lot for their money. Also, that the respondents don't want to spend a lot on lenses etc-maybe $1000. Are there profits for Pentax in a $1750 FF DSLR? Is that $1000 secondary buy attractive enough?
Pentax would also have to consider cannibalization of their high end APS-C products by a FF camera.

I think a lot of the push for FF comes from people with a pile of legacy glass who would not be willing to spend money on new lenses.
08-10-2010, 09:11 PM   #66
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 959
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by mikemike Quote
Pentax would also have to consider cannibalization of their high end APS-C products by a FF camera.

I think a lot of the push for FF comes from people with a pile of legacy glass who would not be willing to spend money on new lenses.
I think that you and arpaagent are right.

My guess is that that amounts to perhaps a few thousand people. And with an average sale price of $1750, the per-unit profit for Pentax would have to be pretty lean. And against that they'd have to defer the price of engineering and building the cameras as well as deploying a support operation. Never mind advertising and then meeting the inevitable demands to upgrade the design and produce an update. Realistically speaking, Pentax can't release a product based on such a market.

Far better for Pentax to find another market for such a camera. Since this group (evidently) doesn't have the economic clout to form a viable market, perhaps we could help Pentax in some other ways? We've got a lot of expertise in the members of this board and we see great ideas come up all the time. Perhaps it's time to consider working on some strategies.
08-11-2010, 01:59 AM   #67
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
My guess is that that amounts to perhaps a few thousand people. And with an average sale price of $1750
It's interesting, but my impression from the results is a bit different.

The #answers in your survey exceeds #posts in this thread and only a few (18%) responded not wanting to buy FF at all. So, there is quite some interest. The acceptable price premium for FF seems to be around $500 which is less what it costs extra to manufacture (today and especially in 1-2 years).

And $1000 extra for glass seems reasonable too. I mean, who on earth would have guessed correctly his expenditures on lenses? The term LBA was crafted for a reason

So, my impression is that about half the enthusiast market will have gone FF when the price premium reaches $500. Which is happening soon. And it better be Pentax... Certainly more than a few thousand people.

My past year's sales estimate for K-7 is 100,000 to 150,000 units. So, we are talking about 50,000 units or more. That's not only not a few. The sales is actually required to compensate for the then ongoing loss in the APSC enthusiast segment.
08-11-2010, 04:45 AM   #68
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 959
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
The #answers in your survey exceeds #posts in this thread and only a few (18%) responded not wanting to buy FF at all. So, there is quite some interest.
I agree that the overall interest is strong—even the number of participants was greater than I expected. It's good to see. I'll get back to that below.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
The acceptable price premium for FF seems to be around $500 which is less what it costs extra to manufacture (today and especially in 1-2 years).
Sorry, do you mean to say that the profit is less than the additional cost of manufacture? Surely with the reuse of components the added expense can't be that great?

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
And $1000 extra for glass seems reasonable too. I mean, who on earth would have guessed correctly his expenditures on lenses? The term LBA was crafted for a reason

So, my impression is that about half the enthusiast market will have gone FF when the price premium reaches $500. Which is happening soon.
Half, really? Does anyone know what happened with Nikon's sales when they rolled out the FF models?

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
And it better be Pentax... Certainly more than a few thousand people.
I was referring to the owners of old glass who'd upgrade for the purposes of reusing their glass. The "gimme" population of enthusiast buyers.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
My past year's sales estimate for K-7 is 100,000 to 150,000 units. So, we are talking about 50,000 units or more. That's not only not a few. The sales is actually required to compensate for the then ongoing loss in the APSC enthusiast segment.
Ongoing loss? Do you mean from loss of APSC sales as FF sales pick up?

What I was getting at earlier was looking at it more than simply a (rather uninspiring, frankly) matter of building products to suit the math. The following quote comes from a site for which I've written some pieces on the ethics of my company's business. This author refers to a collaborative approach to marketing that I think can be applied very well to Pentax's upcoming battle for market significance.

"This new social dynamic calls us to shift our approach from pushing a message to galvanizing people around an idea. Marketing strategies that do no more than prime the pump to achieve sales have become a tax paid for being unremarkable; if your ideas are big enough you don’t need that spend. Organizations now need to be propelled by ideas big enough and inspiring enough to bring communities together – employees and consumers alike – based on a common belief in the value of their activities.

The idea of forming a strong group around a purpose has been central to brand identity for a while. And when this idea is placed within a social ecosystem – and the social tools and practices loosely called web2.0 – the implications for traditional organizations are huge. The social dynamic challenges most of the marketing and organizational development fundamentals of conventional business."

21st Century Network Business Transformation (I/III)

08-11-2010, 05:38 AM   #69
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
Sorry, do you mean to say that the profit is less than the additional cost of manufacture? Surely with the reuse of components the added expense can't be that great?
Don't understand the question. I meant that that producing FF in the attractive price range would be feasible. Of course, the vendor would ask for a higher margin (or at least the same relative margin) and therefore, we won't see it today yet. But I tried to highlight that FF at only $500+ is not that far ahead anymore.
QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
Half, really? Does anyone know what happened with Nikon's sales when they rolled out the FF models?
The D700 is not doing bad compared to the D300s. But I never considered the D700 because it is too much of a crippled camera.

Two cameras which compare side by side (ignore the added bulk, look at viewfinder, shutter, AF system, speed, robustness, pixel pitch, etc.) are D300s and D3X. And now imaging the price difference go down to $500 ...

Of course, Nikon won't do that. They have the pros paying insane prices for what the D3X offers. Just like Hasselblad users do.

But Pentax has no pro market to cannibalize. They can make a big splash by wiping away the insane price premium. Like they just did for the 645D. Pentax can do it again for a FF K-5* which duplicates a K-5 in features just with an FF sensor.

QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
Ongoing loss? Do you mean from loss of APSC sales as FF sales pick up?
Ongoing loss as soon as FF starts to bite into Pentax' enthusiast segment.
QuoteOriginally posted by uccemebug Quote
What I was getting at earlier was looking at it more than simply a (rather uninspiring, frankly) matter of building products to suit the math.
That's exactly what I say. FF is an idea you can gather a community around if you do it right. Small, affordable, uncrippled and just awesome. Like what Pentax tries to do with the 645D.

Canon, Nikon and Hasselblad would/do have a problem to counter that if they don't want to cannibalize their own pro segment.
08-11-2010, 08:25 PM   #70
Veteran Member
uccemebug's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 959
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
But Pentax has no pro market to cannibalize. They can make a big splash by wiping away the insane price premium. Like they just did for the 645D. Pentax can do it again for a FF K-5* which duplicates a K-5 in features just with an FF sensor.
Wiping out insane price premiums happens to be one of the cornerstones of the business I've started here. I can assure you that the formula requires more than just low prices.

QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
That's exactly what I say. FF is an idea you can gather a community around if you do it right. Small, affordable, uncrippled and just awesome. Like what Pentax tries to do with the 645D.
Small, affordable, uncrippled and awesome would be the other half of the formula!

What I'd really like to do is get involved with Pentax—perhaps through this forum—in making that a reality and helping to evangelize. It surely can't hurt that I'm in Tokyo.
08-11-2010, 09:01 PM   #71
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,767
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
Interesting result. How can it be summarized?

To me it looks like the upgrade from APSC to FF is allowed to cost about $500, maybe a bit less (assuming a peak for APSC at $1250 and a peak for FF at $1750). It also looks like a majority would upgrade before or when FF reaches the $1500 price point. Other opinions?
I'd go higher than that price. I think that as long as it stays a few hundred below a 5d or D700, it will be attractive.

You have mentioned "uncrippled" as a factor. While it was probably not what you meant, I would say that "uncrippling" the mount is also critical, since it makes the large pool of excellent but older FF glass more attractive.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, ff, ff pentax, pentax, photography, survey
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How much would you pay for this? timstone Pentax Film SLR Discussion 6 04-18-2010 10:56 AM
how much would you pay for ff? philmorley Pentax News and Rumors 70 02-16-2010 06:56 AM
How much to Pay for a LX? sixstring Pentax Film SLR Discussion 13 05-11-2008 03:49 AM
How much to pay for a 50/1.2 Arpe Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 14 05-30-2007 11:18 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:10 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top