Originally posted by jsherman999 Why would they need to?
From Sony's perspective, they increase their sensor sales volume by at least 5% (initially, to grow) with one single signature, and they then have Ricoh on board for FF sensors. They also may want to establish a stronger relationship with Ricoh to get an inside position to sell them the sensors for this high-res document archival push they're reportedly making and have the 645D tech pointed at right now.
5% extra sales at the cost of supplying a new competitor to the Alpha FF and pixxing off your main industrial customer is not reason enough.
Ricoh/Pentax would bring so little volume to the table at 5% market share for DSLR's and 5% of that 5% to FF within Pentax land. That pushes sub-2,000 FF units per month worldwide if Pentax has 4.45% of the 12.5 million DSLR/ILC unit sales from the 2010 IDC data.
How do you distribute that worldwide? You need MF margins to get that low a volume out. How and which dealers do you engage? International warranty and training support per unit would be astronomical.
Quote: Their relationship with Nikon remains exactly the same. Any existing sensors that contain Nikon IP cannot be sold to anyone else, that goes without saying, but it's a huge leap from there to "Nikon controls who Sony can sell all FF sensors to."
Absolutely not. I use to see it all the time in the auto industry from suppliers like Magna. It's not just common; it's the norm.
I never said Nikon controls Sony. What I did say is that FF production is constrained by high prices and low demand, which feeds margins at the expense of volumes. To keep that equilibrium that last thing you want as Sony, already #3 in FF offerings, is to supply yet another competitor.
Quote: How could there be definitive evidence if the body does not exist? There certainly is evidence that Pentaxians are buying 5Ds, D3s and D700's though, isn't there?
The biggest reason for Pentax to go FF sooner rather than later is to prevent defections from the brand. However, I think the majority of that damage is already over and done with.
Quote: Again, you're speculating on two things here - how long it would take for ROI on a sub-3K body, and how long Ricoh would consider 'too long'.
At under 2,000 units per month in sales, less cannibalization from the K-5 APS-C series as many FF Pentaxians would forego a K-5or successor purchase?
The ROI would take 2-3x as long as Nikon. Ricoh can only get into FF if it expects to bleed red ink for many years rather than wait for the sensor market to move their way.
Quote: Pentax-standalone was too small to do it without completely financing it. Hoya (it turns out) was just positioning Pentax imaging for a quick sale - they had no intention of investing and waiting for ROI. Pentax-Ricoh seems to be establishing itself for a long term revenue generation plan, probably leveraging emerging markets. A perfect incubator for a FF push.
Wrong. Flat out wrong. FF only generates revenues on high price unit sales and corresponding high price lens sales. This makes up for low volumes as a function of demand.
So for Ricoh to see ROI they would have to lose tens of millions of $$ trying to move a mere 2,000 FF units per month when Canon and Nikon are moving 15x that much at much higher profits because the pros are willing to pay the silly prices for a D3s.
If anything, Ricoh subsidizing FF sensor production via Sony helps Nikon as it is Pentax creating the economy f scale on its dime and not Nikon's. Meanwhile, Canon watches and laughs.
Quote: No, they dropped the A850 because it was almost exactly the same as the A900, but sold for a lower price. They had bunched up their products there, in a confusing way. BTW, the A900, which they kept, is priced right at where I expect the K-1 to start.
And the A900 is not exactly a robust seller.
The Flickr Sony A900 Group Pool has 85 members and all Sony FF is at 785.
The Nikon D700 pool alone (and there are more than one) has over 10,000.
That difference in demand alone tells the story about Sony's FF plight and the cancellation of the A850. Sony's total FF sales are probably 2% of Nikon's.
Where would Pentax fit in? You think 5%. I say 0.25%
Hard to lock in FF sensor volumes with no market leverage. And we haven't even factored in competition from Canon.
With numbers like that it is easy to see why Sony has a special deal with Nikon. Nikon moves product and has a self-sustaining demand cycle. Nikon sells more Sony FF sensors than Sony can dream of selling through its own imaging department.
Quote: Should they try to leap in at that point, or start building toward it now, with FF lens announcements, a FF body release schedule?
It's all about price. You cannot move the necessary volume of product at the current FF sensor prices. It's too high a barrier.
Quote: I think what you're describing is simply what Ricoh is foreseeing.
I think Ricoh will take a good time evaluating their options because there is no pressing need to get into a market for $3,000 camera bodies to satisfy a bunch of people with 30 year-old glass and creating a Flickr group pool of under 200 people!
There were no FF camera models released new in 2010. That tells you something about demand, and that was all pre-earthquake.
Quote: They don't have to sell by the bucketloads to make sense. In Pentax's case, it would strengthen K-mount, and help re-establish the brand, and develop a steady revenue stream after ROI schedule ends, something Ricoh seems to be interested in doing. Remember, the $124 million they spent for Pentax Imaging doesn't even make them break a sweat, Further investment toward that asset (which is K-mount) logically follows.
It doesn't strengthen k-mount to bleed red ink. The brand can more cost-effectively re-establish itself by taking care of QC and getting some brand focus. In 2 years it went from being the Subaru of DSLR brands to being the candy-coated bling of brands to being the sensor stain focus problem poster child brand. Before Ricoh bleeds red ink subsidizing a sub-2,000/month unit FF system they can realize far more shareholder value by shoring up the 95% of sales they currently cling to with it their overall 5% market share (under 2% for all cameras combined).
K-mount may struggle as mirrorless strictly curtails new growth. FF would only make that problem worse by trying accommodate both APS-C and FF lens developments and accessories etc. all from a slow to no-growth revenue stream (enter the new revenue stream hopeful, the Q). Ricoh's camera line is mostly dead or will be merged into Pentax, and the whole process will take 2 years. At that point, maybe, just maybe, FF sensor prices will have fallen enough to re-evaluate.
Every company sweats $124 million (unverified).