[saudiboypalaboy]

hello i'm to this forum if i were be given a chance to pick i think i would go to nikon because of the availability of lenses & other accessories.

but versatility wise i'd still go for k5 !!!

[Marc Sabatella]

I sold my K-10D and Tamron 18-250 last week (only have my DA* 16-50 left) and almost bought a Canon 7D today. The K-5 is off my list due to slow low light AF and the D7000 due to over exposure issues. I am trying to hold out for K-30 reviews.

If you can't take absolutely amazing, stellar, professional quality images with *any* of these cameras, I *guarantee* it is not the fault of the camera.

[philbaum]

If you can't take absolutely amazing, stellar, professional quality images with *any* of these cameras, I *guarantee* it is not the fault of the camera.

Marc, +1. With very few words, you've nailed it.

a. I'm almost sure my next camera body will be a Nex5n. But it won't be a replacement for the K5, which i'll keep, it'll be a supplement to. mystic cowboy, who has one, was showing it to me last week and it amazed me. 2 features, the focus peaking and the 6-image stacking to eliminate noise, were outstanding. The focus-peaking, in red, not only showed the sharp edges in focus, but also the DOF by showing all the other sharp edges. Obviously its not a heavy camera, so with a fairly lightweight body/lens, lightweight tripod, i imagine that one could take some really nice landscapes while traveling. Obviously, lenses are a weak area, but with Sigma's new lenses, the 19 and 30, and some Pentax manual lenses like my A-135 f2.8, a guy could take some sweet shots.

b. I'm an enthusiast who likes to sell the occasional photo. So a heavy expensive Nikon ff such as the D800 (with lenses) is the polar opposite of where i want to go. If i was a professional, i'd probably have a far different opinion, but thats not where i am. I don't know what forum members think of Steve Huff's blog, but this quote is interesting, if flippant
Crazy Comparison! Nikon D800 vs Sony NEX-7 vs Olympus E-M5 | STEVE HUFF PHOTOS

It is my opinion after shooting the D800 for a few days that for me..well,
the size and weight of this camera is a bit much. Sure, it can take a serious
quality photograph but so can a NEX-7, or Olympus E-M5 or Fuji X100. But then
again, If you are a DSLR guy then this is one of those “Holy Grail” cameras so
if you do not mind the weight and size and bulk and cost, then this camera is
highly capable of some crazy delicious output.

I did find it easier to manually focus my NEX-7 and OM-D than the D800 as
even with its big and bright OVF I found 20% of my shots were missed in the AF
dept (even when using the confirmation dot). I never miss focus with the NEX or
OM-D when using manual glass. I’ll go over all of this when I write about the
D800.

I also am starting to think that 36 megapixels is way overkill for just about anyone. I don’t care if you are
shooting for huge billboards, 36 MP is overkill. Period. These RAW files are
76MB and they make my iMac a bit sad.

But again, with that said, for anyone wanting crazy resolution and full frame
benefits, the D800 is indeed a pretty wonderful camera.

[ElJamoquio]

Yes, the tiny, almost insignificant percentage of customers who buy FF cameras will go elsewhere.

There are 7 full frame camera listings that sell better on Amazon than ANY pentax camera listing, and it's not like Pentax has a bunch of ways you can purchase their cameras.

Canon announced a few months ago that they thought their profit would be concentrated in the higher end offerings.

[ElJamoquio]

Nothing amazing about those numbers but prestty much expected. DSLR's have been on a continuous increase and the myth that mirrorless is stealing customers is just a myth. Canon in particular stress the large sales from entry level DSLR's. The numbers are from Canons 1. quarter 2012 results.

Canon hopes is another matter but seem very realistic.

How many of Canon's hopes seem realistic?

This year, we are updating our lineup with a particular focus on higher-end segment. We have already announced new advanced amateur and professional level cameras. We will use our rich lineup to expand sales 27% to 9.2 million unit. At the same time, we will also work to increase sales of interchangeable lenses.

[tibbitts]

Assuming roughly the current technology that everyone has now, probably Nikon vs. Canon, but I'm in the sub-full-frame market, and haven't looked into those issues as much.

Having said that I might look at Sony, due partly to in-body stabilization, one disadvantage being the same (sometimes better, sometimes worse) lack of 3rd party lens availability as Pentax suffers.

Almost all the cameras today are remarkably good, even compared to just a few years ago, so it'd be difficult to go far wrong with any camera.

Paul

[Asha]

Considering I came over to Pentax from Nikon and Hasselblad...hard to say :P

[Marc Sabatella]

There are 7 full frame camera listings that sell better on Amazon than ANY pentax camera listing, and it's not like Pentax has a bunch of ways you can purchase their cameras.

Perhaps so, but how did sales of those FF cameras compare to sales of APS-C (and smaller) cameras *from the same manufacturers*? Pentax sells well under 1/10 as many cameras as Canon or Nikon. So it is not really surprising that een their niche products might outsell Pentax' mainstream ones. Also, note that sales figures of consumer grade cameras tend to be diluted because they are often sold in so many different configurations - be sure sure you add up all different kits and colors to get a truer picture of Pentax sales.

In any event, the main points still stand: like Canon and Nikon, Pentax will find only a small percentage of their sales are FF, and a small percentage of an already small percentage of total camera sales is *really* small - very possibly, not enough to recoup the development costs, ever. Meaning Pentax may well lose money on the venture. especially considering my other point - while consumers might have reasons to choose Pentax over the other guys as often as 3% of the time (or whatever their market share currently isn't), their lack of a high end professional support system, combined with lack of third party support for their cameras - I have to believe FF customers would choose Pentax at a significantly lesser rate than even the 3% that do in the APS-C line.

I'm not saying I know for sure development of an FF camera would bankrupt the company - and luckily, Ricoh has some reasonably deep pockets, apparently. But I do think that people who simply assume the spcamera would be a success, or that it would help Pentax as a company, aren't considering the very real risks here. Yes, it is *possible* a Pentax FF camea would succeed just barely well enough to recover its own development coss and make a small profit for the company. It's also *possible* the reverse would be true.

[monochrome]

IMHO we will only see a Pentax FF camera as part of an intentional business decision to compete for a share of the leased, professional market. Of course that means PRI will need to develop camera hardware and lenses (including a new focus motor) as discussed elsewhere o the Forum. Additionally PRI will need to develop a dependable, professional support network, including rapid service turn-around, loaners and rentals. Whatever professional marketing / sponsorship tactics that work will be needed.

IMHO the probability that PRI can profit from this effort directly is quite small, at least for some number of years. Profit will need to come from technology transfer to consumer enthusiast products, enhanced by (planned) increased sales volume as brand identity increases. That is, of course, a major challenge, requires years of hard work and execution (and luck) from Corporate HQ, distributors and regional divisions who are not accustomed to or staffed for that level of skill, marketing actions and activity.

I believe Ricoh intends to attempt it anyway.

[cosmicheretic]

If you can't take absolutely amazing, stellar, professional quality images with *any* of these cameras, I *guarantee* it is not the fault of the camera.

I don't remember stating any of the cameras were incapable of pro quality images in the right hands. If that was the only criteria by which to choose a camera the manufacturers could have stopped R&D and never role out new models.

[ElJamoquio]

Perhaps so, but how did sales of those FF cameras compare to sales of APS-C (and smaller) cameras *from the same manufacturers*? Pentax sells well under 1/10 as many cameras as Canon or Nikon. So it is not really surprising that een their niche products might outsell Pentax' mainstream ones.

Check out Amazon's listings. I think the top FF comes in at #6 in sales in DSLR's. Or at least it did when I checked. Admittedly this is a fun time for a FF fan, but sales of the 5DII and D700 are brisk, too, so it's not like it's just the new stuff that's selling.

Also, note that sales figures of consumer grade cameras tend to be diluted because they are often sold in so many different configurations - be sure sure you add up all different kits and colors to get a truer picture of Pentax sales.

I noted that in my post. Your re-note is noted.

In any event, the main points still stand: like Canon and Nikon, Pentax will find only a small percentage of their sales are FF

That's a bold statement to make in the face of ever improving sensor manufacturing technology. Still, a good counterpoint is that APS-C forces you to buy much more expensive lenses, so you're right from a certain marketing standpoint - an uninformed customer would likely pay a company more for a given IQ with APS-C.

[Fontan]

I don't remember stating any of the cameras were incapable of pro quality images in the right hands. If that was the only criteria by which to choose a camera the manufacturers could have stopped R&D and never role out new models.

I don't mean to put words in Marc's mouth, but what was implied was that instead of looking at multiple cameras for so-called upgrades, you might want to put as much effort (if not more) in obtaining the "right hands," so to speak.

I understand that sensor technology is evolving at a rate that is mind boggling in some sense (high ISO capabilities etc), but at the same time I am often astounded by the quality of pictures that can be obtained by K10D if one is to take a full advantage of its sensor characteristics.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Canon announced a few months ago that they thought their profit would be concentrated in the higher end offerings.

ILC systems are more profitable than fixed lens cameras. Even if they sell less, they gain more from that segment than from fixed lens camera sales. That is already captured in their reports where they show SLRs to account for 28% of the sales, but 73% of the income (if I am reading the famous slide 12 correctly - see top right corner).

BTW, there is a recent rumor of Canon releasing two cameras in June, one being a mirrorless.

[DaveBlack]

I am not planning on "jumping ship". I have two K-5 bodies and a K-7 body. Plus a lot of Pentax lenses. I have brought into the K-mount dslr camera system. Still I have a Olympus E-M5, with the 12-50 kit lens, 45mm/1.8 lens and a FL-600R flash on order. The m-4/3 camera is to replace my p&s camera since I really hate a p&s size sensor. The E-M5 is going to be my caving and kayaking camera. Plus my carry with me camera when photography is a secondary reason. I really don't know if I will expand the m-4/3 system any more than what I am initially have on order. I guess I might be hit with a case of LBA and start buying a few more lenses.

[jsherman999]

Perhaps so, but how did sales of those FF cameras compare to sales of APS-C (and smaller) cameras *from the same manufacturers*? Pentax sells well under 1/10 as many cameras as Canon or Nikon. So it is not really surprising that een their niche products might outsell Pentax' mainstream ones. Also, note that sales figures of consumer grade cameras tend to be diluted because they are often sold in so many different configurations - be sure sure you add up all different kits and colors to get a truer picture of Pentax sales.

In any event, the main points still stand: like Canon and Nikon, Pentax will find only a small percentage of their sales are FF, and a small percentage of an already small percentage of total camera sales is *really* small - very possibly, not enough to recoup the development costs, ever. Meaning Pentax may well lose money on the venture. especially considering my other point - while consumers might have reasons to choose Pentax over the other guys as often as 3% of the time (or whatever their market share currently isn't), their lack of a high end professional support system, combined with lack of third party support for their cameras - I have to believe FF customers would choose Pentax at a significantly lesser rate than even the 3% that do in the APS-C line.

I'm not saying I know for sure development of an FF camera would bankrupt the company - and luckily, Ricoh has some reasonably deep pockets, apparently. But I do think that people who simply assume the spcamera would be a success, or that it would help Pentax as a company, aren't considering the very real risks here. Yes, it is *possible* a Pentax FF camea would succeed just barely well enough to recover its own development coss and make a small profit for the company. It's also *possible* the reverse would be true.

Yes, the fact that we have not seen a FF body (or strong rumour) from Pentax up until now points to the fact that this is not a slam-dunk decision either way, and would require some real commitment especially in the lens-development area, which would require some internal political traction at Pentax-Ricoh to get going.

But there is no way even a completely failed FF initiative would bankrupt the company. While Ricoh has had some bumps in the recent economy, they still have enough cash reserves alone ($2.2 Billion) to bankroll a FF project funded by one year's interest/return on that cash reserve. They could equity-finance, and it's just not a major financial decision based on other things they do, other purchases they've made in the last 5 years (assuming a $50 million cash outlay on top of the $124 million they paid for Pentax to get a FF body and a set of two to four lenses out the door. I think $50 million is a high number, but let's err on the high side.)

Based on Nikon numbers - the D800 is reportedly seeing (conservatively) $1000 per unit profit, which goes towards an ROI schedule. If Pentax puts out a body with $500 per-body profit (which is do-able even paying a per-sensor premium over Nikon's volume discount with Sony,) and sold 1/10 the number of D800's, Pentax would sell around 35,000 bodies the first year. At $500 profit per body, that's $17.5 Million profit in the first year - for bodies alone. The lenses would bring more profits, and they are generally even higher margin. I think it's possible to speculate that Pentax could see a $25 million profit in the first year of a FF body + lens roadmap introduction. This puts the whole initiative in the black in probably under three years, factoring in some drop-off in demand the second year after introduction.

If Pentax could sell 1/8 or 1/5 vs. 1/10 (possible - keep in mind the FF market is different and more sparse than aps-c market,) or if they could realize higher than $500 profit per body, those numbers get even better.

Now, the problem: The body can't suck. It has to be very good, or unique in some way, or the 1/5, 1/8 or even 1/10 D800 numbers become a pipe dream. It has to be affordable - it needs to come in very close or below the D800 and 5DIII. And if the D600 price rumours are true, they basically would have to come out with a FF K-5 with updated AF to compete with that, at lower margins, but still possible to maintain a $500 profit as the body would be much cheaper to develop and produce as well.

So, in other words. your typical old-school camera company exec who just wants to not screw up, just get his kids through college and retire with no drama... may not sponsor a project like that, because it involves some risk, it involves some engineering follow-through, a very tight QA regimen, and some luck, in the form of no disrupting technologies arriving in the middle of the R&D, throwing everything under the bus.



.