[Marc Sabatella]

I noted that in my post.

I don't see any reference to this fact, or any attempt to account for it.

That's a bold statement to make in the face of ever improving sensor manufacturing technology.

Quality of sensor has nothing to do with it. Both APS-C *and* FF sensors are already good enough for 90%+ of photographers. The question is, how many will be willing to shell out more money (FF will always cost more than APS-C) and be willing to lug around a larger camera & lenses (FF will always be larger than APS-C) just to get that extra stop of high ISO performance or the extra stop of DOF or whatever it is that people who lust after FF are wanting.

Still, a good counterpoint is that APS-C forces you to buy much more expensive lenses

??? What on earth are you basing this on? To the extent there is a difference, it's rather the opposite in many cases.

[Marc Sabatella]

But there is no way even a completely failed FF initiative would bankrupt the company.

Agreed; as I indicated, Ricoh does have deep pockets, and it's possible they'd be willing to simply eat the loss and keep the FF line going even if loses money. But the possibility that they see it losing money and decide to orphan the line shouldn't be ignored, either, and then it just becomes an expensive failed experiment, which won't bode well for the APS-C or other lines.

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.

Interesting analysis. I suspect it is optimistic to assume Pentax would sell as many as 1/10 as many FF cameras as Nikon sells D800's - I suspect no Pentax DSLR has *ever* come that close to a similar Nikon model - but it could reasonably be expected to be at least 1/100 as many. Assuming the rest of your figures are correct, that would still suggest $1.7 million profit, and that might also be enough to cover the initial R&D costs after a few years. I think your speculation of 1/8 or even 1/5 are just pipe dreams.

But none of us really knows, of course. All I know is Pentax surely knows these numbers at least as well as we do, and like you say, the fact that they haven't done this yet does indicate it isn't the slam dunk some assume. But your numbers do suggest I might be being overly pessimistic about the chance of success.

Now, the problem: The body can't suck. It has to be very good, or unique in some way

SR will do that to some extent. But I think the bar is higher. It has to not only not suck, and be very good, and unique - it has to be *so* good it overcomes a couple of decades of professional resistance to Pentax as a viable option. I think it has to blow away the competition to even come close to the 1/10 figure, and that's going to be tough to do, because the competition is quite good.

[Marc Sabatella]

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.

That's a pretty good interpretation. But actually, I wasn't necessary meaning anything quite so strong - there might be good reasons to upgrade. My point is that whatever nit picks some review found in the excellent models being proposed to replace the K10D, none should be deal breakers. Just because camera A has X% slower AF in low light than camera B, or camera C is rumored to occasionally overexpose in certain situation and certain metering modes and methods, that won't mean you can't get fabulous results if you know what you are doing. And if you don't know what you are doing, none of these these camera will mean a thing,

[ElJamoquio]

I don't see any reference to this fact, or any attempt to account for it.

It's not a very long post.

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.

Amazon Best Sellers: best Digital SLR Cameras

In this subset of amazon's listings,

(8) Nikon D800
(12) Canon 5DIII body only
(18) Canon 5DII body only
(31) Pentax K-5 body only
(32) Canon 5DII + 24-105
(47) Pentax K-5 + 18-55
(56) Canon 5DIII + 24-105
(89) Pentax K-r + 18-55

There's only two ways to order a K-5 from amazon right now, and there's no math that makes #31+47 better than 18+32, much less 12+18+32+56. You could argue that minimizing the different colors of the k-r would push it up the rankings, sure, but I only see black K-r's out in the wild.

Quality of sensor has nothing to do with it. Both APS-C *and* FF sensors are already good enough for 90%+ of photographers.

In general I agree. However I was shooting today at 1/8000 + F/2.8 + ISO3200 or so and wanted less noise. A more versatile tool is always better, of course.

The question is, how many will be willing to shell out more money (FF will always cost more than APS-C)

Sure, just like 16 megabytes of RAM has always been more expensive than 640K of RAM.

and be willing to lug around a larger camera & lenses (FF will always be larger than APS-C)

The last I checked, the 31mm F1.8 was larger than a nicely designed FF 50mm, and more expensive, too.

just to get that extra stop of high ISO performance or the extra stop of DOF or whatever it is that people who lust after FF are wanting.

??? What on earth are you basing this on? To the extent there is a difference, it's rather the opposite in many cases.

You can ALWAYS do an APS-C image out of an appropriately designed FF camera, APS-C is a subset of FF. Moreover, for a given DOF, FOV, and SNR, the FF lens can be over a stop smaller than the APS-C, making it smaller, lighter, and cheaper (sometimes MUCH cheaper) overall.

[Spring]

I will keep in Pentax for a long time until I finally decide to jump to FF. I like the color from pentax.

[eddie1960]

I will keep in Pentax for a long time until I finally decide to jump to FF. I like the color from pentax.

Keep it long enough and there will be a Pentax FF so no need to jump

[JimJohnson]

I will keep in Pentax for a long time until I finally decide to jump to FF. I like the color from pentax.

Color as in photograph rendering, or color as in equipment skin?

I'm a functionality first kinda guy. When I was car shopping a couple years ago, it drove me nuts when the first question from more than one sales person was what color body and interior I preferred.

[Marc Sabatella]

It's not a very long post.

Indeed, which is why it is so apparent you didn't mention the effect I described.

In this subset of amazon's listings,

(8) Nikon D800
(12) Canon 5DIII body only
(18) Canon 5DII body only
(31) Pentax K-5 body only

What happened to the rest of the seven FF cameras that ranked higher than any Pentax offering? All I see you can prove from this is that two FF bodies sell better than the K-5. Without actual sales figures, you can't really say anything more, since we don't know the sizes of the gaps between listings.

And again, I've already agreed Pentax in general sells a small fraction of the number of cameras than Canon and Nikon do, so no surprise that even their niche products might edge out one of Pentax' relatively mainstream ones. The truth of that claim was not in question; the *significance* of it is.

The last I checked, the 31mm F1.8 was larger than a nicely designed FF 50mm, and more expensive, too.

One of two special case exceptions doesn't change the situation in general.

You can ALWAYS do an APS-C image out of an appropriately designed FF camera, APS-C is a subset of FF.

True. So if you choose to throw away the theoretical advantages of FR - this Payne more money and carrying around a larger and heavier camera for absolutely no reason - then you can inded get by with lenses no larger than you'd use for APS-C. I hardly see how that helps your case.

Moreover, for a given DOF, FOV, and SNR, the FF lens can be over a stop smaller than the APS-C, making it smaller, lighter, and cheaper (sometimes MUCH cheaper) overall.

A stop slower in terms of f-stop ratios, yes, but the lens 1.5 times the focal length - meaning the actual front element size is the same, or actually, larger in most cases. so you have a longer lens with a front element tht is as large or larger. sorry, that is *not* a recipe for smaller lenses. Compare, for example, a typical 135/2.8 (for APS-C) against the equivalent 200/4 (for FF).

[monochrome]

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.

As you state, business risk is necessary to earn business return. We'll see whether Ricoh's attitude towards business risk differs ffomr that of Hoya (and pre-Hoya Pentax)

[jpyykonen]

IF I would "jump ship" I would most likely switch to Nikon because of the 35/1.8G and 85/1.8G AF-S lenses, better availability of longer wildlife lenses and better second hand market. I wish Pentax had those kind of lenses. DA 35/2.4 is close, but just close. And I really would like Pentax to implement silent focusing (DC or SDM motor) to consumer class lenses as screw drive feels kind of dated in modern lenses. I have Sigma 50/1.4 HSM and recently bought Sigma 50-150/2.8 II HSM and Sigma 10/2.8 HSM Fisheye and I love the silence! Also the FF option is tempting as it would give more options. Especially if the rumored D600 really is what it's rumored.

Anyways, there is no reason for me to change for now as I feel that Pentax is "growing with me" and it allows me to do what I want. When there would be something I just cannot do with Pentax, then I have to "look over the fence". I have lot of lenses which I have not mastered and I'm not "all the best gear for me NOW" type of guy anyways. I want to get best out of what I have before buying something new (well, this kind of is not true with lenses as something new is always fun <-> LBA?). I know there are nice lenses coming in the near future which I may or may not buy. Time (and spec sheet/reviews) will tell.

[eddie1960]

As you state, business risk is necessary to earn business return. We'll see whether Ricoh's attitude towards business risk differs ffomr that of Hoya (and pre-Hoya Pentax)

Pre Hoya Pentax planned for a FF release (the *istD was to be FF with the same sensor that effectively Killed Contax - thankfully they rejected that sensor or we might all be shooting canikon and sony

[ElJamoquio]

Indeed, which is why it is so apparent you didn't mention the effect I described.

I mentioned it in the first post and bolded it in the second. It was one sentence out of a post that was about three sentences long. I'm not sure how to convey it with more emphasis without moving our discussion to an unfriendly pentax camera forum.

What happened to the rest of the seven FF cameras that ranked higher than any Pentax offering?

They're there. They were the 1D something or other, a D700 something or other, etc. I gave you a stat initially, then I spent the time looking up some numbers for you as per my original note and your re-note. But there it is - right now FF cameras sell more than any pentax offering. I strongly suspect the FF market share is larger than the Pentax market share.

All I see you can prove from this is that two FF bodies sell better than the K-5. Without actual sales figures, you can't really say anything more, since we don't know the sizes of the gaps between listings.

Of course you cannot say for certain that the D800 sells more than the K-5. (but it's pretty ridiculous IMO to argue against that).

One of two special case exceptions doesn't change the situation in general.

FF is a superset of APS-C.

True. So if you choose to throw away the theoretical advantages of FR - this Payne more money and carrying around a larger and heavier camera for absolutely no reason - then you can inded get by with lenses no larger than you'd use for APS-C. I hardly see how that helps your case.

How much heavier and larger was the 5D Mark II than the 7D?

IMO the reason most FF cameras are larger than most APS-C is largely market distinction and consumer preference. In your opinion it's because of some inherent size of the sensor and related equipment. We're at an impasse there.

On lenses -

How much heavier and larger is the 31mm f1.8 compared to a 50mm f/2.something? how much heavier and larger would a 21mm f/3.2 be than a 40mm f/2.8 FF? oops, wait, a 40mm f/4? FF lenses - with better IQ - are smaller and cheaper in pretty much every case below 50mm. Above that case, FF lenses are a superset of all APS-C images, so there's really no loss there, and there's an advantage if you want it.

Do an empirical lens trend analysis with cost, size and weight as variables and you'll see that it's quite true.

A stop slower in terms of f-stop ratios, yes, but the lens 1.5 times the focal length - meaning the actual front element size is the same, or actually, larger in most cases. so you have a longer lens with a front element tht is as large or larger. sorry, that is *not* a recipe for smaller lenses. Compare, for example, a typical 135/2.8 (for APS-C) against the equivalent 200/4 (for FF).

Pentax doesn't really make a 135 any more. Of course if you compare the 200mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/4, where the lenses are the same diameter and the length difference is about an inch or so? ... and consider that the FF camera is BOTH the APS-C with 300mm f/4 image quality AND the 200mm f/2.8 except with better IQ, more DOF control, and greater framing options (more margin for tracking errors) you start looking at a serious advantage for FF cameras on the long end.

You could argue that for 'some limited subsegment' of the lens population - like 135 f/2.8 and 200mm f/4 - there's a slight size penalty, but that's way more limited a subset IMO than the 'special case exception' you argued was irrelevant earlier (sub 50mm lenses). And of course you can walk around with the 135 f2.8 and have both a 200mm f/4 and a 135 f/2.8 on your camera... which is both an ease of use advantage and a major cost savings.

[Marc Sabatella]

I mentioned it in the first post and bolded it in the second?

Either you are talking about a completely different post than the one I was resonding to, or you incorrectly believe that statement "it's not like Pentax has a bunch of ways you can purchase their cameras" accounts for the effect in question. Not sure which, but if it is important to you to clarify this irrelevant point, feel free to do so.

I strongly suspect the FF market share is larger than the Pentax market share.

Perhaos so, but still irrelevant, for the reasons I've already stated: Pentax would just be a niche player in an even smaller market.

How much heavier and larger was the 5D Mark II than the 7D?

Again,the specifics of how the comparison works out with specific pair of cameras (or lenses) does not disprove the general point, which is so obvious I can't believe you are seriously wasting time arguing it: APS-C systems are inherently smaller than FF systems, and this - as well as price - will not stop mattering to a lot of people.

In your opinion it's because of some inherent size of the sensor and related equipment. We're at an impasse there.

Not really. I say it's both. It's scientifically obvious why FF systems must be larger, all else equal, so obvious it's a waste of time discussing it further. It may also be the case that the market are such that there are no efforts to keep the size down for ff cameras or to artifically inflate it for APS-C cameras.

How much heavier and larger is the 31mm f1.8 compared to a 50mm f/2.something?

Again, yes, in the normal range, this doesn't hold - but one normal lens doesn't a system make. The diffeence I'm size beween the 200/4 and 135/2.8 eats the normal lens for lunch.

Above that case, FF lenses are a superset of all APS-C images, so there's really no loss there, and there's an advantage if you want it.

Again, sure, if you wish to spend extra money on a larger sensor, a large body to house it, and then *throw away all advanage in doing so* by only using it in crop mode. Most people are not that stupid. If you want to claim there would be a reaosn for people to spend the extra money on a larger system, you have to assume they'll want to use lenses that make it worthwhile.

Pentax doesn't really make a 135 any more.

how is that relevant?

Of course if you compare the 200mm f/2.8 and the 300mm f/4, where the lenses are the same diameter and the length difference is about an inch or so?

And the weight difference more significant. In any case, when one reaches the exeme telephoto range, we're now talking about a niche within a niche within a niche.

Look, I realize *you* don't mind the sacrifices inherent in going to a larger format. Can you accept that what are trivial differences to you - an inch here, a couple hundred grams there, a thousand dollars there - is actually significant to many people?

[eddie1960]

Look, I realize *you* don't mind the sacrifices inherent in going to a larger format. Can you accept that what are trivial differences to you - an inch here, a couple hundred grams there, a thousand dollars there - is actually significant to many people?

Marc, it's just as easy to reply you don't realise there are people who want them since you don't. the forum is but a small percentage of users. Also FF adds some prestige which flows down into increased sales at the level down. A student is a classic example, anyone off to school for a photography course has to think about long term goals, they may not buy the FF right off, but the lack of availability rules out a brand because they will want some lens compatibility. Add in a market where Nikon is rumoured to have the D600 coming to market as essentially a FF D7000 for somewhere between 1500 and 2000 and there is a really strong reason to get into that market. Pentax itself may be small but i doubt ricoh plans for it to stay that way. there is risk involved in bringing out a FF and it likely won't make huge money up front, but ignoring the market and it's changing nature is a sure way to guarantee Pentax not only stays small but probably get's even smaller
the user base for FF is not static, every year as prices change and peoples talent evolves the market gains new users and new potential users as people get into DSLR systems
Pentax understood this at one time, Hoya may well have understood it but their goal was never to grow the brand but to sell it
Ricoh I think understands it, and can afford to bankroll it

[TOUGEFC]

For the record the DOF difference between FF and APSC is more than one stop. Its about 1.5 stops.