Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
08-05-2011, 07:47 AM   #136
Veteran Member
RioRico's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Limbo, California
Posts: 11,264
QuoteOriginally posted by Clinton Quote
Well all you FF nay sayers, I've read your comments, and I find that you logic sadly applies to the 645D, as well as the K-5. We should just toss it all in now with the Q which is vastly less expensive, far more portable, and has a much smaller sensor.
I find all this tea-leaf-reading and speculation both informative (in a morbid way) and funny (also morbidly). But if it keeps the analysts too preoccupied to clutter-up the photography forums, that's fine. Meanwhile, I'll slap my Schneider Betavaron onto my K20D and go wander around a Gold Rush cemetery today. And there won't be a Q in sight.

08-05-2011, 07:57 AM   #137
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,166
QuoteOriginally posted by TaoMaas Quote
True...but if long lenses are your thing, APS-C would be the way to go. You can get the same reach in smaller lenses. I'm just throwing some possibilities out there because I believe Pentax has to find some way to make themselves stand out from the FF crowd if they hope to be successful. If they build a camera that's about the same price as Canon/Nikon, with about the same feature set, but with an AF system that doesn't match Canon or Nikon, I don't see the big appeal to anyone but a subset of current Pentax users.
AF needs to be addressed for even an upgraded K5 IMO, So I'm sure there is an AF in development with more AF points for instance. On the flip side Pentax just got an excellent AF review in a German magazine, coming in second overall and first in phase detect (where Nikon D7000 came in last BTW) so the AF isn't as bad as some make out here (grass is always greener don't you know)
and not all people are looking at just reach on a longer lens(i wouldn't consider an FA 77 or DFA 100 long in any case - but they are long enough that SR has a benefit) personally I would be shooting enough low light at 77-100 that SR would be much appreciated and I would miss it. The massive HIGH ISO improvements that came with the K5 make it less required though, so if a FF sensor had that kind of performance it is less of a requirement)
08-05-2011, 07:58 AM   #138
Pentaxian
maxfield_photo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,216
You know cameras really are amazing. They advance so quickly, what's considered middle-of-the-road today would have been revolutionary just a few years before. If the K-r had been introduced five years earlier with all the same features, it would have been considered a high-end professional camera. The fact is you can still take amazing pictures with the K-r, it's really all about the light anyway. Who knows, maybe you can even take decent pictures with the Q.

For the last few years, the company has been using a two-tiered line up for the K mount. A high-end model, the K5 and before that the K7; and a mid-level model, the K-r and the K-x. I can see the company moving to a three-tiered system for the K mount:
Tier I - An entry level camera - the K-r or its successor,
Tier II - a semi-pro level camera - the K5 or its successor,
Tier III - and a professional FF camera (don't know whether it will be called the K1 since that model never saw full production).

Many people are happy with APS-C, and that's great. For them a semi-pro model may be all they'll ever need. After all the semi-pro models of today would have been pro models just a few years earlier. It is in this area or in the entry-level where I would look to introduce a mirrorless body as that's where it will have the most appeal. But for folks who want to grow into a professional setup or are already there, a full frame body would provide that. (Please though, let's keep the mirror, or if it's absolutely necessary to remain competitive, switch to a translucent mirror. I gotsta have my prism VF)

I think part of the reason there aren't many pros shooting Pentax these days is they don't make what is perceived to be a professional camera, 645D aside. (Even for a working pro, $15K for a body and one lens is a bit prohibitive. What does one do for a backup?) The perception is important though. A third tier in the K mount line would add legitimacy to the brand name in the mind of the enthusiast and pro level photographer, who would be coincidentally, the target market segment for such a camera. It's easy to calculate the cost to produce a full frame camera, but what is not so easy is to calculate the effect of being perceived as a professional camera company. How many newcomers will Pentax attract? How many disenchanted Canonians and Nikonias will they steal away?
08-05-2011, 08:04 AM   #139
Loyal Site Supporter
eddie1960's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
Did you know that Canon uses some Pentax patents in their OS system?

Anyway, it's up to Pentax to decide on the SR. However, I also think that SR, along with weather sealing and other assets, are to be expected in any FF model.
Ah but are their enough Pentax patents being used to trade Technology without cost (pretty damn hard then to make Small your sell point since OS lenses are huge by comparison)

I didn't know that actually BTW

Personally I see no benefit in stripping any K5 feature from a FF, I think a FF needs to really be the halo product for this category (sure the 645D is a hell of a halo but it has little to do with the DSLR category aside from sharing some Tech which brought feature to MF that weren't there before) A
A FF with improved AF control, Manual video controls, better VF and all the K5 goodies, could then share tech with 645D mk 2 keeping the 645D as a market leader in it's segment (because Phase/Mamiya/Hassleblad are certainly preparing something to address the 645D success)

08-05-2011, 09:15 AM - 1 Like   #140
Forum Member
kanzlr's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Vienna
Posts: 92
It is always funny that people on a forum think that they are in ANY way representative of the "market".

It is the same really back from the days when there where PalmOS, Windows Mobile, etc. forums, in road bike forums, etc...

get real. your opinion (and mine) is of little interest to companies like Pentax, Nikon, Shimano, etc. We are not representative. We are freaks. And a minority at that.

99.999999% of DSLR buyers would never ever register at a forum, because they are not interested in the details.
90% of DSLR buyers are not interested in primes, FF/FX, wireless flash (or add on flashes at all). etc.
95% of DSLR buyers rather get another brand body with kit lens as an upgrade rather than invest in lenses (buying expensive lenses is a super alien concept to almost everybody I know that uses a DSLR for personal usage. most don't even want to change lenses at all).

I agree with the critics that in order to move significant FX volumes, you need a big overall volume. Don't see it.

maybe in a few years.

it doesn't make much difference anyway. I shot film, APS-C digital, Leica M8, FX (Nikon D700) and now a K-5
The format really does make almost no difference for most usage scenarios (and the funny obsession with ultra thin DoF is just ridiculous).

also, that weird fixation on 135 film being what everything else's is measured against. As was already said, 135 was good enough for most, APS-C is good enough in digital, and other than that stubborn "my 35mm is a 35mm again!" arguments and shallower DoF for a given scenario, FX buys you NOTHING other than cost and size penalties.

I enjoy my K-5 more than the D700 or M8, for what its worth.
08-05-2011, 09:22 AM   #141
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
... The problem for Pentax is price. Nikon volumes mean a much lower price (say $650 per sensor) where Pentax's .25% of the volume would translate into a substantially higher price (maybe $1,200 per sensor).
Before you build on top of this speculative card , I'd like to point out that it's shaky.

Mr Hogan:

"...Plenty of sensors exist, but in Pentax's volume, we're talking about US$500 or more for every sensor."


.
QuoteQuote:
The whole point of supply exclusives is to prevent a marginal competitor from breaking into your market on the coattails of your investments. Nikon's deal with Sony is likely structured that way.
I think much of your argument seems to be distilling down to a core dependency: Nikon scoring a deal with Sony that goes beyond any sensors they've co-developed with Sony - beyond where their IP ends. To me this seems to be a very shaky assumption.


QuoteQuote:
... why sell to Pentax and muddy up the high margins by adding more competition?
There's a contradiction embedded here - if Nikon enjoys a break on margins because of volume, a Pentax deal would represent an even slightly higher margin per-unit for Sony.



QuoteQuote:
A Pentax FF could also take APS-C sales away as people will buy either a Pentax APS-C or an FF model, but not both.
Most FF buyers are upgrading from aps-c, not leaping in from the P&S tier, so they've already bought a higher-end aps-c body. A FF offering would catch those that will either 1) go to CaNikon for their next upgrade, or 2) just sit tight and not upgrade to anything, as the next aps-c body doesn't really represent anything more than an incremental upgrade.


QuoteQuote:
The big myth in this argument for Pentax FF is that Sony makes sensors and then shops them around. Not so; certainly not with FF (nor Koda with their MF's for the 645D and Leica's M9). The customers and the suppliers work through the design from shop drawing stage to production, including shared credit and developmental overhead. This is how Thom Hogan and others have portrayed the Sony/Nikon FF design system. It's common in industrial design.

Mr Hogan, again:

"...As far as I know Sony Imaging is still fighting the battle to release another full frame body in 2012. For Sony Semiconductor its really a matter of whether or not there's a paying customer. The basic ability is already in their system now. Scaling up APS sensors (or down for that matter) is simple enough to do."

The sensors Nikon developed with Sony in the past are not going to end up in Pentax cameras - we can move beyond that. What's left, in 2012, is looking pretty attractive.


.

Last edited by jsherman999; 08-05-2011 at 09:41 AM.
08-05-2011, 09:28 AM   #142
K-9
Pentaxian
K-9's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,962
QuoteOriginally posted by kanzlr Quote
90% of DSLR buyers are not interested in primes, FF/FX, wireless flash (or add on flashes at all). etc.
95% of DSLR buyers rather get another brand body with kit lens as an upgrade rather than invest in lenses (buying expensive lenses is a super alien concept to almost everybody I know that uses a DSLR for personal usage. most don't even want to change lenses at all).
Your percentages are way,way off. Prime lenses are on Amazon's bestselling lenses list daily. There are two currently in the top 5, and over the past few months, the Canon 50mm was consistently at #1.
08-05-2011, 09:30 AM   #143
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,411
QuoteOriginally posted by K-9 Quote
Your percentages are way,way off. Prime lenses are on Amazon's bestselling lenses list daily. There are two currently in the top 5, and over the past few months, the Canon 50mm was consistently at #1.
That might be because those who aren't interested in primes never (or rarely) advance beyond the included kit lens, and hence never buy a lens on its own.

08-05-2011, 09:34 AM   #144
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by Asahiflex Quote
No problem; just attach 10 LBS of weight to the tripod socket
Just be sure to take a lackey along to carry that extra back pack.
08-05-2011, 09:44 AM   #145
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Canberra
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 739
So no one can help fill in how Phase 2 leads to Phase 3 "Profit!" ?

I think we've got Phase 1 sorted now - Build an FF Camera Body... but still - two pages since asking.. no one can help shed light on this sticky "Phase 2" point...

Seriously - I would love someone to explain because I feel stupid (well more than usual) not seeing how Phase 1 leads to Phase 3....
08-05-2011, 09:46 AM   #146
Moderator
Site Supporter
Blue's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Florida Hill Country
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 17,166
QuoteOriginally posted by kanzlr Quote
It is always funny that people on a forum think that they are in ANY way representative of the "market".

It is the same really back from the days when there where PalmOS, Windows Mobile, etc. forums, in road bike forums, etc...

get real. your opinion (and mine) is of little interest to companies like Pentax, Nikon, Shimano, etc. We are not representative. We are freaks. And a minority at that.

99.999999% of DSLR buyers would never ever register at a forum, because they are not interested in the details.
90% of DSLR buyers are not interested in primes, FF/FX, wireless flash (or add on flashes at all). etc.
95% of DSLR buyers rather get another brand body with kit lens as an upgrade rather than invest in lenses (buying expensive lenses is a super alien concept to almost everybody I know that uses a DSLR for personal usage. most don't even want to change lenses at all).

#4- those numbers look like they were found using an Pentax Endoscope.
#4- I think you found those numbers via Pentax endoscope.

I agree with the critics that in order to move significant FX volumes, you need a big overall volume. Don't see it.

maybe in a few years.

it doesn't make much difference anyway. I shot film, APS-C digital, Leica M8, FX (Nikon D700) and now a K-5
The format really does make almost no difference for most usage scenarios (and the funny obsession with ultra thin DoF is just ridiculous).

also, that weird fixation on 135 film being what everything else's is measured against. As was already said, 135 was good enough for most, APS-C is good enough in digital, and other than that stubborn "my 35mm is a 35mm again!" arguments and shallower DoF for a given scenario, FX buys you NOTHING other than cost and size penalties.

I enjoy my K-5 more than the D700 or M8, for what its worth.

#1- for a low end cheap assed canon entry level camera, canon may not care about their rank and file. However, you are incorrect regarding the 60d and more expensive bodies and lenses. The same thing goes with Pentax and K-5. The think is they have to wade through all the opinions, suggestions and request.

#2- I think the numbers are :BS: regarding dSLR users not being interested in primes. It may be stratified in that basic Rebel and K-x users use zooms. However, many people use dSLR and SLR body so we CAN use prime lenses. Otherwise I would be using an LX5 and call it good.

#3- while I have no doubt some people by a body with kit lens, upper end bodies often don't have the opportunity to excel with a basic zoom. Try the K20d or K-5 with a DA 18-55 WR which is as good or better kit than anyone elses on the market, then try it with an FA 43/1.9 or DA* 55/1.4 and get back too us on that. Same goes with Canon and their L glass or the top Nikkor stuff. I won't even through in Sony and the Zeiss auto-focus glass.
08-05-2011, 09:49 AM   #147
K-9
Pentaxian
K-9's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,962
QuoteOriginally posted by deadwolfbones Quote
That might be because those who aren't interested in primes never (or rarely) advance beyond the included kit lens, and hence never buy a lens on its own.
This is still nowhere near 90% of all camera buyers.
08-05-2011, 09:50 AM   #148
K-9
Pentaxian
K-9's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,962
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
#2- I think the numbers are :BS: regarding dSLR users not being interested in primes.
Without a doubt.
08-05-2011, 09:57 AM   #149
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,951
QuoteOriginally posted by K-9 Quote
This is still nowhere near 90% of all camera buyers.
It probably is true for all camera buyers, but maybe not for all SLR buyers. There is a difference,.
08-05-2011, 09:58 AM   #150
Pentaxian
jsherman999's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,228
QuoteOriginally posted by Blue Quote
Just be sure to take a lackey along to carry that extra back pack.
Tiger Woods' caddy is available.

.
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, frame, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
full frame digital beaumont Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 55 01-30-2011 06:31 AM
LX + Scan=Full Frame Digital ziggy7 Pentax Film SLR Discussion 45 01-09-2011 01:59 AM
Digital Only or Full Frame lenses JamieP Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 15 05-10-2009 08:48 PM
DA vs FA Limited and the question of full frame digital 8540tomg Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 27 11-29-2008 10:07 AM
Full Frame Digital with DA lenses konraDarnok Pentax News and Rumors 27 08-20-2008 11:07 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:01 PM. | See also: NikonForums.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