[Nicolas06]

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.

The problem is marketing 101. You have a product, you estimate that if you sell it at $50, you'll sell 200 of them for a total of $10K. if you sell it at $100, you'll sell 100 of them for the same $10K and if you sell it at $200 you'll set 30 of them for $6K.

The dumb guy will set the price as either $100 to make the most money with the least effort: not that much volume, max cash. Anybody that had a course in marking will say that you'll actually sell 200 units: 100 units at $50, 70 units at $100 and 30 units at $200 for a total of $18K.

To achieve that you need to convince all buyers that the version they get if the best for them. So what you do you make the cheaper version looking sufficiantly worse while still looking good and the expensive version sufficianty better to justify the price.

Apple does that by setting a different amount of memory and changing the screen size for their phones. Camera manufacturers do it by changing the number of FPS, the buffer size and the number of AF points.

You can invest more by doing a more different product. The problem is the more the product are different the more you invest in R&D event if that to marke the product worse. The K30 and K50 with their flowed apperture system did cost to pentax to design, integrate and support it, including the much higher return rate that goes with it. They maybe saved $1 on manufacturing per unit but it cost them maybe $1 million in R&D and quadrupled their return rate.

Likely they had been better by using K5 apperture lever on all products, avoid the R&D cost to design a cheaper version as well as the increased warrenty cost of dealing with higher return rate of products. And actually nobody would ever know if they did use a K5 apperture lever on the entry level.

Don't say they are not doing that already on some aspects and that it isnt common. The K3/K3-II and K1 all share the same AF sensor hardware. But the K1 has 33 AF points while the APSC variant only 27... Intel sell the same chip configured to run at different max frequency at widely different price. Car manufacturer use the same motor but change the software setting to change the horse power (or to cheat in polution tests) or to adapt to the local legislation.

Sure you could redesign everything but that's more costly in term of R&D and the reduced manufacturing cost only worth it for high volume. And it can actually hurt your image... Think K30/K50 Pentax bodies. They all seems to have the apperture lever issue.To save a tiny amount of money they hurt the brand for many first time users that are less likely to continue buying Pentax products, but they also increased their return rate... I am personally shamed to have advised friend to take theses product when most of them finally had the issue. 3 out of 4. I'll never advise anybody on a K70 (and we see the first K70 with the issue) and even on the KP I don't trust Pentax to have put the full flagship treament as there obvious shortcoming (like max 1/6000 mechanical shutter speed like K30)...

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-26-2017 at 07:53 AM.

[Jeff Lopez]

We are all seeing this through Pentaxian eyes, not through the typical new to dslr eyes, and marketing doesnt work like that.
A new average Joe buyer would be looking for a 2 lens kit bundle, that is a given. She/he has about $1300-1500 to spend on said bundle, and it shall be a FF kit.They dont want to mess around with DA*, Limiteds, F,etc..They just want a everyday FF camera with 2 kit lens. They need a in camera flash,for sure.They dont need a grip, have you seen other brands kit bundles with grips?
The most usefull selling point would be WR camera build, it doesnt even have to be all metal, just the stainless steel body..
Up to now, we are looking to something like a D750, which is very very popular to FF newcomers.
If Pentax would provide a dslr that fits those specs, Pentax can easily up the K1 price to a $2400-3000 range and call it a day, this adds value perception to the K1, elevates its position up to the finest class, between the 5D's and D5's, where it should had been since the beginning.
The K1 is a specialist camera, it sells to pros and experienced users,
and it does get expensive when you figure out the cost of Pentax FF lens.

[Rondec]

We are all seeing this through Pentaxian eyes, not through the typical new to dslr eyes, and marketing doesnt work like that.
A new average Joe buyer would be looking for a 2 lens kit bundle, that is a given. She/he has about $1300-1500 to spend on said bundle, and it shall be a FF kit.They dont want to mess around with DA*, Limiteds, F,etc..They just want a everyday FF camera with 2 kit lens. They need a in camera flash,for sure.They dont need a grip, have you seen other brands kit bundles with grips?
The most usefull selling point would be WR camera build, it doesnt even have to be all metal, just the stainless steel body..
Up to now, we are looking to something like a D750, which is very very popular to FF newcomers.
If Pentax would provide a dslr that fits those specs, Pentax can easily up the K1 price to a $2400-3000 range and call it a day, this adds value perception to the K1, elevates its position up to the finest class, between the 5D's and D5's, where it should had been since the beginning.
The K1 is a specialist camera, it sells to pros and experienced users,
and it does get expensive when you figure out the cost of Pentax FF lens.

The "average Joe" photographer is still buying an APS-C camera and a couple of variable aperture lenses. The 6D II is currently priced at 1700 dollars, 2600 dollars with a 24-105 f4 lens. The D750 is 1500 dollars, but you have to figure it is getting pretty close to the end of its life cycle. It has a really old sensor -- same one that was in the original D600, I guess. It is tough to compare it to whatever new gear Pentax brings to the market.

Canon and Nikon have a few cheap-ish full frame lenses, but top end lenses for all of these cameras are pretty pricey. The only cheap L lens is the 70-200 f4 without IS.

[Jeff Lopez]

No, the average Joe already has a aps-c camera, but is looking to upgrade, because he/she is influenced with the bokeh and bigger viewfinder, I already stated this on my second post. They want that pro neighbor look, call it envy.
And the propaganda is there, clear and real, on almost all camera review sites. Sony is having a joy ride with this..
Those Nikons and Canons are old, I give you that, but there are still on the shelves and have the usual warranty, which is very very utmost important for new buyers.

---

Last edited by Jeff Lopez; 11-26-2017 at 07:55 AM.

[mee]

The "average Joe" photographer is still buying an APS-C camera and a couple of variable aperture lenses. The 6D II is currently priced at 1700 dollars, 2600 dollars with a 24-105 f4 lens. The D750 is 1500 dollars, but you have to figure it is getting pretty close to the end of its life cycle. It has a really old sensor -- same one that was in the original D600, I guess. It is tough to compare it to whatever new gear Pentax brings to the market.

Canon and Nikon have a few cheap-ish full frame lenses, but top end lenses for all of these cameras are pretty pricey. The only cheap L lens is the 70-200 f4 without IS.

The value is in used and 3rd party lens options. Manufacturers such as Tokina that can offer 90% of the performance for half the cost is what the budget shopping is looking at. Actually Tokina would be excellent on K mount since Pentax offers IBIS and most of the Tokinas are without IS. That would fill the f/4 zooms gap and add cheapish f/2.8 zooms too.

With there being such a giant hole one can drive a truck through it ..in terms of 'new' FF lens selection.. I'm surprised more 3rd parties haven't stepped up to the plate yet for K mount.

Fact remains though that Joe or Jane Anybody who shops for cameras sees the 1 year old Pentax (a brand that they've only vaguely heard about) for 1900 dollars and the 4 year old Canikon for 1200-1500 dollars or the Sony for 800 (brands that are commonly known) and sees the bargain in the Canikonys. Because release date isn't mentioned in the shop. And cheap premium only matters when you understand what you're getting for the money. I frequent consumer deal sites and see this ALL OF THE TIME. Consumers eyeball the price first, features and performance much later.

But the bigger issue is Pentax started much later than Canikony in digital FF. So, until they develop the D-FA lineup more, they are at a disadvantage in shops. I think the outlook will be much different in 3 years... positively for Pentax, provided by then they actually offer what is currently on their roadmap. If so, by then the K-1 will have come down more in price, there will be a larger number of second hand D-FAs for more budget conscious, and the newer primes will fill some of the larger gaps for those wanting premium optics.

[ZombieArmy]

Intel sell the same chip configured to run at different max frequency at widely different price.

Same silicon, but wildly different capabilities. Not all chips that come out of the fab are created equally and are only suited for lower tier products. You should look up binning.

[Nicolas06]

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.

Maybe the additional K1 manufactured cost $200. Maybe even $300. The rest pay for the R&D, the warrenty, the advertisement, the reseller, storage and so on.

It may be very well worth to sell the K1 at $1000 instead $2000 but only if you can ensure than only the people that can't play more than $1000 get it at that price. So you'll put a 24MP sensor and disable a few AF points and remove the articulated screen not because you save $10, $20 or $50 that is more than outweighter by the additional cost in inventory or logistics and all but because you can sell much more.

Pentax isn't really expecting to be able to do that. Or if your prefer their lower priced K1 is the KP with the sensor size a big differentiator and actually likely a bigger cost saving measure maybe decreasing the manufacturing cost to $150.

The problem is they don't have a large enouh entry level FF lens line up anyway and their market is too small. The most logical thing for them is maybe to make a K1-II at some point sell it at current K1 price or a bit higher and discount K1 to $1500 or bellow. By that time the 70-300 on the line up may be released as well maybe as refresh of the FA50 / FA35 or something like that to cover the entry level market.

[Jeff Lopez]

Fact remains though that Joe or Jane Anybody who shops for cameras sees the 1 year old Pentax (a brand that they've only vaguely heard about) for 1900 dollars and the 4 year old Canikon for 1200-1500 dollars or the Sony for 800 (brands that are commonly known) and sees the bargain in the Canikonys. Because release date isn't mentioned in the shop. And cheap premium only matters when you understand what you're getting for the money. I frequent consumer deal sites and see this ALL OF THE TIME. Consumers eyeball the price first, features and performance much later.

THIS is GOLD! Thanks Mee..
This is the whole point to what I am reffering to..Price first, feature later, which leads to more upgrade sales once the Joe figures out he would like to have pixel shift or gps..
There also a consideration of regional tastes..
Far East buyers buy a camera and beat the crap out of it until it dies, then buy.
Americans average middle age men and women tend to buy dslrs as a toy, to be used driven by fever, 5 months later the camera will be mostly in the car trunk.
Europeans buy Leicas and Hassys to be fondled like a bottle of Negru de Purcari, admired on the desk. Adds to personal status.

[Kunzite]

The problem is that things are much more complex than "marketing 101". Making up some numbers and selling actual products are very different activities. I suggest opening your eyes and looking at how it's done IRL.
A camera is much more than its price label. Each feature has the potential of increasing (or decreasing, e.g. if it's missing or not implemented to certain expectations) sales. Cutting down on some already weak points, that could be very undesirable (especially as the competition is superior precisely on those points).

The K-1 having more AF points was possible due to revised optics. I suspect space is starting to become a limitation.

By the way, I've seen people with a course in programming... they knew less than John Snow Is it any different with marketing?

@Jeff Lopez:
Perhaps the customers that would pay $800 for a K-1 are not worth getting?

[Lord Lucan]

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

You write as if the KM and K1000 were introduced at the same time, or the K1000 came first. K David in the reviews of the KM here says something similar with "I just don't really feel like the KM has a reason to exist in the K lineup. The K2 and KX I get, totally, and the K1000 as well. But adding the [KM] ...". In fact the K2, KX and KM were the original K-series, and it was the K1000 that was added, a year later. But as we know the K1000 was a massive commercial success, seemingly because it was the cheapest SLR of any main brand that you could buy, despite the lack of a self timer which one would have thought essential for camera aimed partly at the "family" market; less so the DoF preview.

In fact both the KM and K1000 were basically the previous generation of Pentax SLRs, being the old Spotmatic F given the K mount and some cosmetics. The equivalent today would be Pentax still selling the *ist D at $500.

[Rondec]

The value is in used and 3rd party lens options. Manufacturers such as Tokina that can offer 90% of the performance for half the cost is what the budget shopping is looking at. Actually Tokina would be excellent on K mount since Pentax offers IBIS and most of the Tokinas are without IS. That would fill the f/4 zooms gap and add cheapish f/2.8 zooms too.

With there being such a giant hole one can drive a truck through it ..in terms of 'new' FF lens selection.. I'm surprised more 3rd parties haven't stepped up to the plate yet for K mount.

Fact remains though that Joe or Jane Anybody who shops for cameras sees the 1 year old Pentax (a brand that they've only vaguely heard about) for 1900 dollars and the 4 year old Canikon for 1200-1500 dollars or the Sony for 800 (brands that are commonly known) and sees the bargain in the Canikonys. Because release date isn't mentioned in the shop. And cheap premium only matters when you understand what you're getting for the money. I frequent consumer deal sites and see this ALL OF THE TIME. Consumers eyeball the price first, features and performance much later.

But the bigger issue is Pentax started much later than Canikony in digital FF. So, until they develop the D-FA lineup more, they are at a disadvantage in shops. I think the outlook will be much different in 3 years... positively for Pentax, provided by then they actually offer what is currently on their roadmap. If so, by then the K-1 will have come down more in price, there will be a larger number of second hand D-FAs for more budget conscious, and the newer primes will fill some of the larger gaps for those wanting premium optics.

Maybe it will get better. Certainly the used market will have more full frame camera bodies, but the third party options certainly aren't likely to expand a whole lot, unless Pentax sales pick up a bunch, which they won't if folks think like you do. At the same time, from a personal standpoint, it doesn't really matter to me. There are enough Pentax lenses and they are reasonably priced compared to brand name Nikon/Canon glass to allow me to purchase them.

I must confess I haven't been satisfied with the Sigma lenses I owned in the past and wouldn't buy into a brand so I could purchase Sigma glass (I know they've come a long way since then, but still)...

[mee]

Maybe it will get better. Certainly the used market will have more full frame camera bodies, but the third party options certainly aren't likely to expand a whole lot, unless Pentax sales pick up a bunch, which they won't if folks think like you do. At the same time, from a personal standpoint, it doesn't really matter to me. There are enough Pentax lenses and they are reasonably priced compared to brand name Nikon/Canon glass to allow me to purchase them.

I must confess I haven't been satisfied with the Sigma lenses I owned in the past and wouldn't buy into a brand so I could purchase Sigma glass (I know they've come a long way since then, but still)...

Yes Pentax FF is a much better fit for you all the way around. I still like Pentax for APS-C.. it is well developed with a nice array of camera bodies and lens selection.

My fav lens on K-1 was my Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro lens. Sharp with lots of detail even at 100% crop. Mindblowing. And it didn't matter that it was the older non-OS version because Pentax took care of that with the solid 5 axis IBIS. I would have been super happy to use the 24-105 f/4 and the 100-400mm Sigmas on it. They've come a long way from the Sigma of the 90s and early 2000s.

But I can't imagine having 5 grand in my hand to buy into a FF system (coming from another brand), looking at Pentax today in the retail setting and thinking 'ahh yes that is the robust, fully developed system for me' haha. I see interest piqued in other brand forums over the K-1 but also see the 'where is the fast 85?' or 'where is the _________ ? (insert other lens common in other brands)' questions too. Because it's not quite cooked just yet. Which is why I hope Ricoh has the constitution to stay in the game and let it keep cooking (developing more lenses esp) until the 'cake' is done. Because, once it is done, I suspect it is going to be extra delicious.

D-FA party cake.. with sprinkles. But I still think it is going to take 2-3 more years to really develop the lens lineup. My mistake was buying in early and having an unrealistic timetable for lens launches. But in a few more years the K-1 should have dropped in price and, with the inclusion of more lenses, it should be an even more interesting proposition. Might even see an updated FF body by then... I think that would be exciting.

[Rondec]

Yes Pentax FF is a much better fit for you all the way around. I still like Pentax for APS-C.. it is well developed with a nice array of camera bodies and lens selection.

My fav lens on K-1 was my Sigma 105 f/2.8 macro lens. Sharp with lots of detail even at 100% crop. Mindblowing. And it didn't matter that it was the older non-OS version because Pentax took care of that with the solid 5 axis IBIS. I would have been super happy to use the 24-105 f/4 and the 100-400mm Sigmas on it. They've come a long way from the Sigma of the 90s and early 2000s.

But I can't imagine having 5 grand in my hand to buy into a FF system (coming from another brand), looking at Pentax today in the retail setting and thinking 'ahh yes that is the robust, fully developed system for me' haha. I see interest piqued in other brand forums over the K-1 but also see the 'where is the fast 85?' or 'where is the _________ ? (insert other lens common in other brands)' questions too. Because it's not quite cooked just yet. Which is why I hope Ricoh has the constitution to stay in the game and let it keep cooking (developing more lenses esp) until the 'cake' is done. Because, once it is done, I suspect it is going to be extra delicious.

D-FA party cake.. with sprinkles. But I still think it is going to take 2-3 more years to really develop the lens lineup. My mistake was buying in early and having an unrealistic timetable for lens launches. But in a few more years the K-1 should have dropped in price and, with the inclusion of more lenses, it should be an even more interesting proposition. Might even see an updated FF body by then... I think that would be exciting.

I'm not totally sure where you are coming from. First of all, there are very nice lenses out there that cover full frame in the FA limiteds, DA *55, DFA 100 macro that won't break the bank. If you want a fast 85, then the FA 77 is the current lens that fits that bill. But you said that Pentax was too expensive for you, not that you wanted to spend more and couldn't.

I bought most of my full frame primes used and they were very reasonable. I did buy the DFA zooms new and those weren't cheap, but honestly if I had wanted to save, I would have gotten Samyang 14mm, DFA 28-105 and Tamron 70-200 and I would have had all the bases covered for as cheap as you could go with anything but an A7.

[gm4life]

I'm curious how Fujifilm APS-C compares, since they're fully committed to APS-C. (I don't consider medium format as being a slice of the same segment as aps-c and full frame are.)

Fuji wishes they had lenses built like the Limited series and the range of awesome crop glass Pentax has... Don’t get me started on bang for the buck either.

[mee]

I'm not totally sure where you are coming from. First of all, there are very nice lenses out there that cover full frame in the FA limiteds, DA *55, DFA 100 macro that won't break the bank. If you want a fast 85, then the FA 77 is the current lens that fits that bill. But you said that Pentax was too expensive for you, not that you wanted to spend more and couldn't.

I bought most of my full frame primes used and they were very reasonable. I did buy the DFA zooms new and those weren't cheap, but honestly if I had wanted to save, I would have gotten Samyang 14mm, DFA 28-105 and Tamron 70-200 and I would have had all the bases covered for as cheap as you could go with anything but an A7.

When did I say Pentax was too expensive for me? All I recall saying in the past is I personally found the current retail lens selection for K mount FF was weak, I wasn't particularly enthused about the K-1 (outside of the IQ which is stellar), and (as a result) I've looked at other systems.

The lenses you mentioned in your first paragraph are ancient, steam driven artifacts or not officially D-FA branded. It is a cobbled together system currently. When I look at Canon, Nikon, or Sony I see well put together modern FF systems... whole series/generation of modern lenses. Pentax is surely growing the FF system into something special, but it isn't fully realized.

Otherwise, why would Ricoh offer a road map with a brand new fast 50, 85, and (likely) 35? Plus a new UWA prime and a new telephoto zoom to boot. Obviously they see the holes too and they are plugging them ..slowly.. with fresh, modern designs driven by modern in-lens motors. The last full series of FF lenses from Pentax were the FA's. They are rather long in the tooth.. obviously because they picked APS-C to grow for a good decade plus and only recently have come back to FF.

If you build it, they will come. Again, I'm looking forward to Pentax FF in a couple of years. I think it will be healthy.