Is a full frame camera worth $1k to $1.3k feasible to make?

lammie200 · 04-19-2012, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

Aside from that, and I know this opens a huge debate, what is the real need of full frame. From an ISO vs noise perspective, i would put the K5 with a current sensor against most full frame bodies with their 4 year old technology, the K5 has higher resolution, and therefore unless you are an ultra wide angle freak, or a shoot at F1.4 all the time person for portraits, it is a waste, in my opinion.

FF geometry allows for better DOF rendering. Personally, I think it is very subtle compared to the APS-C in the K-5, but there are those that obsess with it.

RioRico · 04-19-2012, 11:15 AM

I'll renew my suggestion that a cheap bare-bones GXR-PK-FF mountor would be more economically feasible for Pentax-Ricoh than would a standalone FF body. For one thing, it *could* be bare-bones because customers would have no expectation that it goes head-to-head with vastly more expensive FF dSLRs. If it used twin APS sensors, the mountor might cost under US$1k. Would that be tempting?

jsherman999 · 04-19-2012, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by boriscleto

No. The sensor in a FF camera costs 10-20 times that in an APS-C camera. That is why a 4 year old FF camera still retails at over $2000.

This isn't really the reason, though. The sensor in the $7500 FF D3x only cost about $450 more than the one used in the $1100 aps-c D7000. Right now, we may be looking at FF sensors at around $300 cost to the body manufacturer, if I remember Falk's numbers correctly.

Yes, Pentax (or anyone) could make and sell a bare-bones FF DSLR for less than $1500 and make a small profit on it, but at that price it would eat into their top-end aps-c space, they would have to lower the prices of their aps-c bodies, losing margin there, etc...

So in other words it's not in Canon or Nikon's best interest to do that, especially when the higher-margin, $3000 D800 for example is on backorder until probably late-summer.

A disruptive player like a Pentax who has less to lose could maybe do it, if they wanted to really shake things up, but they would have to sacrifice aps-c sales as well.

A body priced around $2200-2500 probably makes more sense for Pentax right now.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax...make a bare bones full frame high mp dslr.	slackercruster	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	09-26-2012 04:20 PM
36MP full frame camera club	falconeye	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	157	07-28-2012 02:33 PM
Full Frame lenses and value if a FF camera is introduced	olivemike	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	22	01-16-2012 11:20 PM
Pentax full frame camera?	crystax	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	15	07-29-2011 06:24 PM
full frame DSLR camera, when?	yxy728	Photographic Technique	34	04-29-2011 09:29 AM

04-19-2012, 10:38 AM	#16
lammie200 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: San Francisco Photos: Albums Posts: 1,033	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge Aside from that, and I know this opens a huge debate, what is the real need of full frame. From an ISO vs noise perspective, i would put the K5 with a current sensor against most full frame bodies with their 4 year old technology, the K5 has higher resolution, and therefore unless you are an ultra wide angle freak, or a shoot at F1.4 all the time person for portraits, it is a waste, in my opinion. FF geometry allows for better DOF rendering. Personally, I think it is very subtle compared to the APS-C in the K-5, but there are those that obsess with it.

04-19-2012, 11:15 AM	#17
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	I'll renew my suggestion that a cheap bare-bones GXR-PK-FF mountor would be more economically feasible for Pentax-Ricoh than would a standalone FF body. For one thing, it could be bare-bones because customers would have no expectation that it goes head-to-head with vastly more expensive FF dSLRs. If it used twin APS sensors, the mountor might cost under US$1k. Would that be tempting?

04-19-2012, 01:36 PM	#18
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by boriscleto No. The sensor in a FF camera costs 10-20 times that in an APS-C camera. That is why a 4 year old FF camera still retails at over $2000. This isn't really the reason, though. The sensor in the $7500 FF D3x only cost about $450 more than the one used in the $1100 aps-c D7000. Right now, we may be looking at FF sensors at around $300 cost to the body manufacturer, if I remember Falk's numbers correctly. Yes, Pentax (or anyone) could make and sell a bare-bones FF DSLR for less than $1500 and make a small profit on it, but at that price it would eat into their top-end aps-c space, they would have to lower the prices of their aps-c bodies, losing margin there, etc... So in other words it's not in Canon or Nikon's best interest to do that, especially when the higher-margin, $3000 D800 for example is on backorder until probably late-summer. A disruptive player like a Pentax who has less to lose could maybe do it, if they wanted to really shake things up, but they would have to sacrifice aps-c sales as well. A body priced around $2200-2500 probably makes more sense for Pentax right now.