[Kunzite]

Save? All you'd be doing is to create a camera nobody wants, doesn't cost less to produce and could create a backlash impacting the entire line. The vultures would immediately start crying, "this one product is the future of Pentax! no more uncrippled cameras, I tell you! they're doomed!".

A cheaper product is a combination of two things:
- lower production price - the real stuff
- higher volumes
You cannot cut out features that customers want, as you'd reduce the volume. So you'd compromise - on build quality, component quality (there's a reason the K-50, and not the K-3 had issues with the aperture mechanism), high-end specific features (dual card slots, pentaprism viewfinder, interface...), performance (processor, memory; I'd add fps here but on the K-1 it's low already). Perhaps some improvements would be necessary (video?).
A cheaper version of the K-1, say based on the 24MP FF sensor, would be capable of over 6 fps rather than being limited to 3.
IMO.

[sibyrnes]

Several post back, biz-engineer made the point that the K-I is a system, not just a camera body. Pentax already makes the lowest priced Full Frame DSLR. In order to make the system "cheaper" Pentax needs to introduce lower priced lenses like a full frame equivalent to the DA18-135 or DA 15. Or how about an affordable 70-210? Instead, Pentax has chosen to go the opposite direction - introducing what might be some of the most expensive new full frame lenses to use on the least expensive body? This makes good business sense? Does someone who needs and is willing to pay for an expensive 85mm f1.4 really care about saving a couple of hundred dollars on a camera body?


Let's be realistic. We are not going to see a stripped down, cheaper version of the K-1. If Pentax wants to sell more K-1's they need to offer a complete line of affordable glass to go with the K-1. This is a formula used by Nikon and Canon and one that was used by Pentax back in the day when they were a major player.

[Rondec]

Several post back, biz-engineer made the point that the K-I is a system, not just a camera body. Pentax already makes the lowest priced Full Frame DSLR. In order to make the system "cheaper" Pentax needs to introduce lower priced lenses like a full frame equivalent to the DA18-135 or DA 15. Or how about an affordable 70-210? Instead, Pentax has chosen to go the opposite direction - introducing what might be some of the most expensive new full frame lenses to use on the least expensive body? This makes good business sense? Does someone who needs and is willing to pay for an expensive 85mm f1.4 really care about saving a couple of hundred dollars on a camera body?


Let's be realistic. We are not going to see a stripped down, cheaper version of the K-1. If Pentax wants to sell more K-1's they need to offer a complete line of affordable glass to go with the K-1. This is a formula used by Nikon and Canon and one that was used by Pentax back in the day when they were a major player.

I think those things are coming eventually, but while the K-1 is the "cheapest full frame DSLR" (I think the 6D and D610 were actually cheaper), it is the most expensive non-medium format camera that Pentax makes. Clearly it is their flagship and they are trying to come up with glass that maximizes it. Variable aperture and f4 glass will follow later and should actually be a little easier to produce.

---------- Post added 11-25-17 at 01:25 PM ----------

Save? All you'd be doing is to create a camera nobody wants, doesn't cost less to produce and could create a backlash impacting the entire line. The vultures would immediately start crying, "this one product is the future of Pentax! no more uncrippled cameras, I tell you! they're doomed!".

A cheaper product is a combination of two things:
- lower production price - the real stuff
- higher volumes
You cannot cut out features that customers want, as you'd reduce the volume. So you'd compromise - on build quality, component quality (there's a reason the K-50, and not the K-3 had issues with the aperture mechanism), high-end specific features (dual card slots, pentaprism viewfinder, interface...), performance (processor, memory; I'd add fps here but on the K-1 it's low already). Perhaps some improvements would be necessary (video?).
A cheaper version of the K-1, say based on the 24MP FF sensor, would be capable of over 6 fps rather than being limited to 3.
IMO.

I don't disagree, but I don't have data either. Does the A7 sell fewer units than, say, the A7r? I have no idea. It should, as it is a somewhat crippled version, but it is also very cheap and the A7r is a little more expensive.

If you sold an 800 dollar full frame camera that had a very stripped down feel, I wonder how it would sell against cameras like the KP?

[repaap]

I really dont think that making any cheaper FF would help anything. Making more capable, and maybe take few bells and whistles off from K-1 to make it more responsive, and faster burst etc...then sell K-1 at lower price with that one.

I find it funny that Sony A7 is still at market, people must still buy it and they propably made A LOT of them...but it is old, it has poor battery life...oh boy. ( I must admit that I was giving it a little thought when I saw it there. And I looked prizes of little newer like A7s and A7II....they are still quite prizey and almost as expensive as K-1, which is better than them.)

which still takes me back to this question, should there be K-1, which would be less expensive, but with fewer things...not really. competition is still there, and everything goes forward. I might be interested of K-1 with 24 MP modern really high quality sensor thou, but it could still be same prize as K-1, whit good specs.

[Kunzite]

The A7 wasn't $800 in 2013, when it was launched - but $1700, kit with a 28-70. And Sony's strategy of flooding the market with cameras - how many to date, 7 in 5 years? - is not something we should expect from Ricoh. And the market is not growing with 40% each year, nor is a cheap DSLR any kind of novelty.
I doubt it could possibly work.

My point is that we're looking at the wrong approach to make a cheaper camera. And I'll add - looking at the discounted prices of 4 years models is also wrong. No manufacturer can match that with a newly launched product. Sony didn't.
But we could also look at the A7 series to see how Sony did it. Lousy build quality (the only camera I've heard with third party reinforced mounts), cutting out the external charger, all the "essential" features (including 1080@60p video) but nothing more. Oh, and it shoots at 5fps.

IMO - I've said this before - the cheaper camera could be a modified K-1 after a higher end model is introduced, or the K-1 itself - discounted. But nowhere near $1000.
The K-1 already was announced at entry level prices.

---------- Post added 25-11-17 at 09:36 PM ----------

I really dont think that making any cheaper FF would help anything. Making more capable, and maybe take few bells and whistles off from K-1 to make it more responsive, and faster burst etc...then sell K-1 at lower price with that one.

I have this feeling that, if Ricoh Imaging were to outdo themselves and make a cheap but still nice camera, many of the people asking for "cheap" will find something cheaper... elsewhere.
A 4 years old camera, perhaps; a twice replaced Sony MILC; or even second hand models.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Pentax tried the "cheap" route... it backfired, badly: they didn't really gain market share, yet even now we're seeing outrages at the thought of a Pentax being priced in line with the competition.
And they couldn't solve all those issues that are solved in higher end products - faster AF motors, better AF, processing power, etc. It's only now, with the expensive D FA* primes, that we're seeing ring-type SDM.

[Lord Lucan]

How much do you save by using software to limit the frame rate? My thought was that you had to use cheaper components, not use the same ones but cripple the camera with poorer software, to get a cheaper camera.

Depends on who "You" is. The manufacturer does not save anything in manufacturing costs, but the buyer pays less. It is a marketing strategy. The physical cost of metal, plastic plastic etc and its manufacture is only part of what you pay for in the shop. Much of the cost of high tech is in the development, which Pentax has already paid before it reached the market. If Pentax can get additional sales by selling virtually that same model to a lower sector of the market, even at a lower profit margin but in greater volume, it makes sense to them. However, they would remove some features, even at a little cost to themselves, so as not to disgruntle the buyers of the more expensive version and indeed continue selling that more expensive version at the higher price. Typically this might be done at the mid-life of the original more expensive version to revitalise business.

As I said, Pentax did it in the past with the SP 500 which was a "crippled" SP II. They also did it with the K1000 which was a "crippled" KM.

[house]

Remove

Wifi
Flip screen
JPEG engine
Video
Astro tracer
Video out
Dual SD slot

How it would affect price is indeed an open question though.

[monochrome]

Remove

Wifi
Flip screen
JPEG engine
Video
Astro tracer
Video out
Dual SD slot

How it would affect price is indeed an open question though.

That’s an LX.

I believe they’re building the lenses now to go with the next FF body, which will be super-premium. Then they’ll continue K-1 production, perhaps slightly discounted, and fill in with f/4 zooms and slower primes.

Their price points then will be (using current model designations):

K-70 (APSc accessible)
KP ( (APSc enthusiast)
K-3x (APSc Flagship)
K-1 (FF accessible)
K-1x (FF Flagship)
645z (crop sensor accessible)
645x (645 Flagship, 100mp crop or FF 645)

I needn’t point out that would be the broadest dSLR catalog available anywhere, which spreads core R&D over enough cash flow to make it profitable.

[house]

That’s an LX

With GPS, pixelshift, 36mp etc.

My list above are things I don't use or could do without. The perfect camera is the one with only the features you use.

[monochrome]

With GPS, pixelshift, 36mp etc.

My list above are things I don't use or could do without. The perfect camera is the one with only the features you use.

If only we could pay for cameras ala carte, with only the features we use or can’t do without.
.

[leekil]

Depends on who "You" is. The manufacturer does not save anything in manufacturing costs, but the buyer pays less. It is a marketing strategy. The physical cost of metal, plastic plastic etc and its manufacture is only part of what you pay for in the shop. Much of the cost of high tech is in the development, which Pentax has already paid before it reached the market. If Pentax can get additional sales by selling virtually that same model to a lower sector of the market, even at a lower profit margin but in greater volume, it makes sense to them. However, they would remove some features, even at a little cost to themselves, so as not to disgruntle the buyers of the more expensive version and indeed continue selling that more expensive version at the higher price. Typically this might be done at the mid-life of the original more expensive version to revitalise business.

As I said, Pentax did it in the past with the SP 500 which was a "crippled" SP II. They also did it with the K1000 which was a "crippled" KM.

If the K-1 is already cheaper than other full-frame cameras, there might not be much margin to make a software-crippled version significantly cheaper, and still make money on it. You'd be better off selling the older tech, and fully developed, K-1 for less, and having a whole new body as the flagship.

I don't understand exactly why they had the KM as well as the K1000, but there was at least a slight difference between the models -- self timer/DOF preview, and viewfinder magnification and coverage -- that would merit some sort of actual cost savings, though perhaps not making a huge difference in the prices. Here they have a K100 50/2 for $164.50 and a KM 55/1.8 for $189.50. That's only a $25/13% difference, of which a significant amount could be due to the difference in the lenses.

All sizes | Nov 76 47th St Photo camera store ad | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[Gimbal]

As I said before, drop as much mechanical stuff as possible.
That is, no mirror box, no penta prism, no optical viewfinder. Focus via sensors on the main image sensor only. And as soon as the sensors can do it use electronic shutter only. Also remove shake reduction, and go for a composite body. No flip screen. No flash.

Sort of a full frame K01 without SR and a shutter, might add electronic viewfinder.
As a twist, make black and white versions without bayer filter and astro versions without IR filter.

[Kunzite]

The K1000, hmm... it was introduced for an inflation corrected $1330.

@house: My idea about which features I want to have is different than yours, and others' are different further. Then, you might think today that you wouldn't use feature X but later change your mind. How do you solve this problem? Yes, it's obvious how: by including a superset of all those features.
How do you not solve this problem? By making dozens of versions of what could be the same camera. We're in the real of combinatorics here.
My perfect camera has all the features I want, some I might not want today and some I might never want but are desirable to the others - thus making the camera less expensive.

[Rondec]

With GPS, pixelshift, 36mp etc.

My list above are things I don't use or could do without. The perfect camera is the one with only the features you use.

The perfect camera is one that sells enough to pay for the R and D. If Pentax makes a camera that only you and a hundred other people buy because it is underspecified then it will actually be very expensive. Things like video and jpeg engine are software costs that are already paid for. Removing them, though makes the camera much less saleable.

I do understand that people have this impression that if you removed all of the features they don't need (weird filters, composition adjustment, video) that somehow you could knock the price down. But, if, as you say, you have pixel shift then you have to have the IBIS and if you have GPS then you have the astro tracer too.

Long story short, I bought a K-1 on release. It was a good deal then and it's still a good deal today. Pentax probably could knock a few dollars off by leaving off the flip screen and going with cheaper body construction, but it probably wouldn't be a huge price drop -- certainly not enough to get it down into the 1000 dollar range.

[adjutant]

The perfect camera is one that sells enough to pay for the R and D. If Pentax makes a camera that only you and a hundred other people buy because it is underspecified then it will actually be very expensive. Things like video and jpeg engine are software costs that are already paid for. Removing them, though makes the camera much less saleable.

I do understand that people have this impression that if you removed all of the features they don't need (weird filters, composition adjustment, video) that somehow you could knock the price down. But, if, as you say, you have pixel shift then you have to have the IBIS and if you have GPS then you have the astro tracer too.

Long story short, I bought a K-1 on release. It was a good deal then and it's still a good deal today. Pentax probably could knock a few dollars off by leaving off the flip screen and going with cheaper body construction, but it probably wouldn't be a huge price drop -- certainly not enough to get it down into the 1000 dollar range.

I wholeheartedly agree. Couldn't have said it better myself.