|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-15-2013, 11:28 AM
|
| |
Mmmm....
I don't think anyone is predicting the end of APS-C, just that it moved down the price ladder. A $45 sensor as the engine in a $1500 camera is not sustainable. These wholesale replacement scenarios are not really based on sound economics.
What is happening is that APS-C in a flagship DSLR form is under price pressure. Interestingly it is under less pressure from below than from FF above because at $45/sensor unit and that fact DSLR is a mature tech. The price impacts of the mirrorless m4/3 and 1" have been negligible. APS-C DSLR's can get quite inexpensive and compete vey well. It's the top-end that is in trouble in large part because the top-end is what drives the lucrative after-market sale of lenses and accessories the most. As APS-C up high margin way gives way to FF (and maybe even medium format of the Canon and Nikon rumours are true) then that creates issues for Pentax.
They could pull an Olympus and try and out out an APS-C EM-1 type body. It is doubtful that smaller sensors can sustain the revenues very long a the price curve drops against them. Non-sensor features do not appear to be a way to keep customers paying more. This is a major difference from the film era.
The entire dedicated camera market is now stalled or shrinking in sales, not in consumer usage. The market is now entering a phase of more replacement product that new customers, and they are replacing at a slower pace than before, probably going back to historical norms (about 8 year replacement cycles for flagships).
The upshot of all this is the excellent price/performance ratio for APS-C will benefit value customers. What do you bet the next GR will have superior features and a lower price tag?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-14-2013, 06:46 PM
|
| |
I used to have a Mamiya 645 system with lenses from 35 to 300mm.
But I sold it 6 months ago because in 3 years I only shot 3 rolls and local processing went bye-bye.
The D700 was a big lug. It felt right shooting with it, but awful just carrying it around. Now I use the Peak Design strap system with my K-x and K-30 plus the Limited and they just slide into any old backpack.
I've had my eye on a Mamiya 6
The squeeze is on
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-14-2013, 10:14 AM
|
| |
I wrestled with a D700.
IMO it should have come with a Sherpa.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-13-2013, 10:13 AM
|
| |
I agree. Sony has a 20 MP APS-C (A3000) to go along with the 24 MP. The latter gets to Nikon's level if the MP race is still on, but the former is at Canon's same price point.
The arbitrator may be wi-fi which would be 15-20% more efficient at 20MP. However it gets awkward for Pentax if the lowest end Sony has the same sensor as the highest end Pentax. :confused:
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-08-2013, 08:07 PM
|
| |
I said no such thing.
I specifically said Pentax has to make FF. APS-C only will deprive it of the higher-end revenues.
Technically, all camera makers saw APS-C as a bridge sensor. They did not anticipate that sensors yields and FF costs would take so long to come down. The backlog towards FF has been affordable photolithography.
Ideally, if APS-C was going to be around this long, yes, a new mount should have been made. That is eventually what Fuji has done.
But for now it looks like K-mount will serve a sub-$1,000 market for APS-C (where the K-5ii is at $896 a B&H this week) and FF above that price point, probably closer to the $1,500.
Problem is Pentax dies on revenues without $1,500 bodies, and especially on margins. They become the Wal-Mart DSLR brand if they have no FF to recapture their higher-end. Retailers won't even stock them because they will have too few after-market sales.
Trying to force your way up a shrinking price ladder is death without volume below. Toyota made Lexus after establishing their own brand. Pentax has no cachet to suddenly make $2,800 bodies when their current flagship is at $896. Their customers are at $896. The DSLR user base looks to start shrinking for a variety of reasons. You know how you capture from your competitors?
Price. The DSLR market is mature so tech advances cannot do it. Pentax starts from a huge FF lens deficit. And they have poor distribution. Unlike Canon they don't make their own sensors. Historically Pentax has competed on price.
Maybe re-read this:
http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/equivalence/FullFrame.pdf
Falk is right IMO except his timeframe is too advanced because he overestimates the market for pricey cameras. Even prosumer enthusiasts question a $3,000 outlay for 8% more linear resolution at 1.9" of shallower DOF at f/1.4. But that is what is buttering Canon and Nikon's bread these days. They have taken a huge slice from Pentax wit their lower-end FF's. And the slaughter will continue.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-08-2013, 06:16 PM
|
| |
Of course it is. One of the main problems for an APS-C camera on a legacy mount is it cannot get the form factor size down because the opening is too wide. It's structurally larger than it needs to be, so an APS-C camera on an an original 135 mount cannot take full advantage of the smaller sensor.
1. Olympus ison a death watch. Their OM5 has sold poorly and the company's latest financials show the imaging division is bleeding. Using Olympus as an example of success and price points is self-defeating to your arguments. An Oly 2040/2.8 zoom is closer to an f/5.6 in equivalence for DOF control. Is that a "high quality" offering?
I put forth as evidence this is precisely what is causing Olympus staggering losses:
More on Olympus and Breakeven | Sans Mirror ? mirrorless, interchangeable lens cameras | Thom Hogan
2. Even if Pentax were to make this so-called "highly desirable glass" what did you have in mind? Of course one can make the same for FF, and in shallower DOF options, do so much cheaper. It's an arm's race APS-C cannot win because to get those faster apertures it gets costlier with APS-C than FF unless you are willing to give up substantial DOF control.
3. Sensors determine glass. Price determines which glass. If you want a D800-level, Pentax will not make the fast glass for that. Too few Pentaxians can and ever will spend that much on a system camera. I had a D700. I sold my Mamiya 645. So what? You won't get the fast FF glass unless Pentax gets a much higher paying user base. I'm not seeing that in the cards. I'm seeing a sub-$2,000 FF body and a long wait for lenses, and an APS-C ad campaign trying to buy time.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-08-2013, 04:48 PM
|
| |
APS-C cannot be the future of K-mount. It's an FF mount.
If they cede the mid-$1,000 market to Canon, Nikon, and Sony, they will lose so much revenue they cannot support the mount.
Those competitors will buy standardized components and share resources between APS-C and FF more than they do now and drive their APS-C costs well below Pentax. This cost-shifting between high-margin, lower volume FF and higher volume, lower margin APS-C will give them an economy of scale Pentax cannot compete against, not in DSLR's.
To stay relevant Pentax needs both a volume and a margin market. The industry is littered with the corpses of companies that tried to be all low-end (where is Casio?), or all high-end (where is Contax?). Even Leica has had to slum it to stabilize revenues. Decades ago Olympus had to give up its prized OM-mount and focus on being the best P&S maker with a sizeable low-end market. Why? they could not get a higher-end AF system to compete with Canon, Nikon, and Minolta (and Pentax). They were not large enough to keep their old sales while cannibalizing with a new mount.
Remember: APS-C should have had the new mount.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-08-2013, 12:26 PM
|
| |
What we do know is that Sony didn't output any FF sensors to anyone but Nikon for almost 2 years. They had the fabs and used them only for one purchaser and in re-tooling abandoned the DSLR market for their SLT concept. And Pentax did nothing with that defining generation of FF sensors. I think Sony restrains capacity to maximize prices, which is very common in industrials. Their sensor low read-out noise is so good that it is hard to compete so they can do this. Even Olympus is sourcing from them. Leica is not (dumb). Sony had no need to create another competitor to SLT and I doubt Pentax could offer the volume to make it affordable.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-08-2013, 12:17 PM
|
| |
It is how sensor manufacturing works. FF is 2.45 larger in physical area so the yield per photolithographic session is that much lower.
Worse, the defect rate also scales to that dynamic leading to a higher % of loss. So a 10% loss on the wafer translates to a 15% loss of the APS-C sized chips but a whopping 40% of the FF.
There isn't 1:1 a linear relationship. The curve gets worse for each step of larger sensor. That's why medium format digital cameras are so expensive.
The only way to combat this is to make it up in volume and larger photolithographers forl larger wafers (non-stiitched). Those fabs are very expensive, as in a hundred million of $'s for the full white room and everything.
FF runs smack into other holdbacks adding cost: battery power, processing power, buffers and pipes, file size (assuming FF pixel density will stay relative to smaller sensors), and a generally larger size, and for DSLR's, a larger prism and banging mirror. This at a time when the size of cameras is an issue and mirrorless adds pressure.
The market separation between APS-C and FF is driving APS-C down to commodity volumes and FF is tracking behind. Where the 'floor' is we're not sure, but APS-C looks to be IMO about $45 per sensor after 24 months on the market and FF about 6x that only for the sensor and its wired support. Because an FF body is only about 15% more mass than APS-C the non-sensor cost differences are not as dramatic as the sensor cost differences in total camera price.
If the APS-C 'floor' for a DSLR camera body is say US$650 on initial offering (what it seems to have stabilized at recently), it is suspected that FF will be about 2x that when all is said and done. The FF market shrinks when the form factor and lens sizes kick in to the total cost of ownership. File size and networking will also be issues against 'big'. There is some advantage to a smaller sensor camera being cheaper and easier to nail volume. 15% on distribution costs like shipping adds up.
The problem most people here have is not understanding that household disposable income drives camera sales. Cameras over $1,000 are actually quite a rare purchase in the greater scheme of things. If APS-C can lodge in profitably well below US$1,000 per unit there's a long term future of this format being the most cost-effective for the mass market. But if you are Pentax, even all that volume may not be enough margin, so they still need to be at higher price points to stay relevant and give their user base an upgrade path. That mans Pentax has no choice but to supply FF soon.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-07-2013, 06:36 AM
|
| |
FF sensors are a different issue due to the much lower yields. At a minimum they cost 2.45x more based on size alone vs APS-C, with a much higher % of loss due to defect rates.
That makes FF a much higher price point than APS-C by a significant factor, especially when you add in the larger memory and processing.
What we do know is that Sony makes the superlative sensors; their tech is ahead of all others. Nikon has had a hand in designing a number of sensors in their brand. Fuji and Canon both use Sony as well. So it's hard to see where it is an open market because it is not an off the shelf product. There's no shortage, but there are built-in price constraints due to yield and loss, plus the purchaser requires some design input and likely cost-sharing up-front. These all cap capacity because you have to be absolutely certain you have enough customers at the FF price point to buy enough product to amortize those yields and losses. It's a volume market (especially CMOS) and that means it is price sensitive. Nikon and Canon carry the volume. Pentax...not so sure.
And for almost 2 years Sony stopped making FF sensors for anyone but Nikon. Sony even stopped the manufacture of their own FF cameras. For the primary years establishing FF Nikon bought 100% of Sony's capacity. That tells you something.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-06-2013, 08:17 PM
|
| |
Some of the lenses look like they can be tweaked for FF if need be, especially in the mid-ranges from 35mm+.
But FF is going to require zooms, and those are not so sure. 18-135...no. 17-7-...no. 16-50...not good enough. 50-135....that's an APS-C FL. 60-250...likeliest candidate...sort of a prototype L-glass.
Primes don't sell DSLR's. Zooms do. Wide, and long, and fast zooms. Things no Fuji, or m43 or P&S can do. Not the low hanging fruit mid-FL primes. Those necessary zooms do not appear to be on the roadmap and, frankly, looking at Ricoh and Pentax's current output, I am not sure they have the manufacturing capacity, even with some outsourcing. It would be an enormous effort, almost 4x increase in lens production all when the DSLR biz is expected to shrink vis-a-vis mirrorless and fixed lens etc.
I don't see a robust, forward looking roadmap. Even the DA 35/2.4 and 50/1.8 look to be reactions to a spate of Canon, Nikon, and Sony lenses suddenly shoved into the market. And then it stalled (save for the weird 40 XS). I don't see any cohesiveness with Pentax, not since the Limiteds.You cannot even tell from country to country which lenses are still officially in production or inventory. It's all a big, black box dissuading customer loyalty.
Between that and Nikon sucking up all the sensors at prices Pentax volume could never compete with no wonder we are blue in the face.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
09-06-2013, 03:12 PM
|
| |
I keep saying that Pentax FF will come when the price point drops to the ~US$1750 space.
They have to do it in a way that makes it possible for their loyal base to wait while they ramp up lens production.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-22-2013, 07:48 AM
|
| |
Not Moore's law but just Econ 101. If it's bigger it will cost more. Eventually it all adds up and you go up a price point.
You also have form factor issues because you may need more circuit board slots to accommodate, so compactness gets...less compact. This is an area where the DSLR format (k-mount) itself loses to mirrorless.
Also, cameras are going to be doing more in-body processing due to the rise of non-desktop, mobile OS's. Where the processing power comes from is still up in the air, but you can already tell that ILC's are increasingly adding in editing and file storage features that were normally reserved for generic computing OS's. That's because huge swathes of the market for ILC's do not have desktop OS capabilities. Been over that in other threads.
So if the camera itself is a networked platform, it needs power and circuitry to make that happen (not to mention wi-fi). All these little costs and requirements to "fit in" and network add up. All you need is 1 more chip, 1 more processor, and 15% more battery plus software and you've added $26 material to the camera + labour + margins. Now you are $71 higher and still have to amortize that within a 3-year maximum sales window. That verges on a whole price point jump.
But since consumers are beginning to analyze with efficacy and value after their first half decade in digital hobby photography, manufacturers have to add these costs at the same or lower price points. The added costs of the smartphone instant gratification requirement are colliding with the commodity pricing of sensors at high-MP's.
If I had to design a DSLR right now from the ground up keeping the OVF as is, I'd opt for a networked platform at reasonable MP's with largest possible sensor but sold with a spare battery rather than assume 400+ shots/session (down to 220 to get your wi-fi). I'd also ditch the top LCD, articulate the touchscreen rear and get the form factor as small as possible both to save money and accommodate the soccer Moms. Want larger? Buy the grip. The device would have an open API for networking and I'd let the market tap the editing (and tethering) with the camera as either the editing platform or via a mobile OS of the consumer's choice with some RAW parameters under license.
I'd close the optical API's and cripple access to create a revenue stream only for licensees. Buy my glass or my chosen partners'. Either way I get a cut. Glass is my money.
APS-C is below US$1,000 and FF is above US$1,200. FF has more MP's, is physically larger, and has costlier, but faster glass. 2 models down, 1 model up, and a mirrorless (APS) with EVF and a silent AF video lens kit....because all of us secretly need 2 bodies.
Photography is an enduring hobby. Cameras as a separate purchase item and category of "household necessities" are not going anywhere. Kodak was right about the whole "moment" thing. The one edge the optical companies have is their optics making for fast, accurate AF and images that reflect emotional moments and passion. I see so many frustrated parents wrestling with their smartphones at soccer and baseball games that when I take a photo during the game, they email me (WHILE I AM COACHING!!!!!...and from 20 feet away), if I could send them the photo I just took with my DSLR.
That's why the standalone camera and photography itself isn't going anywhere.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-22-2013, 05:54 AM
|
| |
I was generally assuming that if you have more mm of sensor you'll probably try and sell more resolution, so more MP's. I suspect that will be the case because one of the attributes (especially for those who do PP edit) justifying FF is resolution. So we see the D800 challenging medium format turf. More resolution justifies the premium.
Analogy: a V8 usually has more HP than a V4. At that point you start to need dual exhausts and so on until you are pricing 10-30% higher for inter-related components. Like the RX-1 having that astounding, and very expensive, lens.
And then you get into margins because once you justify with marketing that they really, really want that V8, the consumer is willing to pay more across the board, so padding the difference is more likely to increase the delta. That's why we're not seeing the D700 sensor recycled into a "budget" FF (which was a long-term suggestion 1-2 years ago for many here getting a Pentax FF out the door cheap).
I am not so sure you'll see "budget" FF. You will the whole cost parameter shift to the left (down in price) , however. For the camera manufacturers, all exposure is to the left these days. Look at Fuji racing to get low-end x-mount models out the door, with a very limited lens selection.
The one camera that will tell us where the FF cost curve is going is the upcoming NEX FF. Where Sony starts that price will give us some idea of a future "floor". The continued absence of a Nikon D400 also speaks volumes.
Nevertheless we are on the verge of a camera market financial bloodletting if recent sales data holds true. This is going to be very good for consumers, and I think Pentax will do OK as a value brand under the Ricoh financial umbrella.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-21-2013, 05:40 PM
|
| |
Prices tend to stabilize. APS-C starts at $85 for a first run sensor then drops to about $45.
FF starts at 2.45x that just because of unavoidable technical issues with photolithography.
And FF requires much larger data buffers and pipes, which are costlier physical components.
Cooling is also a factor, as is more power.
Just getting an FF sensor out the door on a circuit is probably 4x APS-C in cost. Add in another 10-15% in form factor size to correspond and FF will always be 2-3 price points higher than APS-C and physically larger.
Economically we then get to the point of efficacy and value.
If we only view web images via Facebook and printing becomes exceedingly rare, and larger formats are not needed (we stream rather than face and gaze) then the price per image comes into play and efficacy enters the market through millions of consumer experiences. This is why many people are starting to say 16-24 MP's (FF or APS) is more than good enough for editing as there is little observable benefit more MP's. The upgrade cycle slows.
So the market will begin to question the $2,000 camera and then the $1,000 camera, and so on as value becomes more important. Nevertheless consumers will benefit by having excellent IQ from a variety of sensors.
This happened with film cameras in the 1990's. We started to see much cheaper polycarbonate bodies mounting polycarb optical housings because for the 4x6 mini-lab print on a roll once per month there was no need to over-invest. Cameras got cheaper (and film actually got more expensive and substantially better) as the consumer market balked at paying premiums. It was a bloodbath. You started to see super-pro cameras like the F4 come out at astronomical prices causing Nikon all sorts of financial grief and consumers getting 90% of that functionality for 30% of that price...on the same film.
We're likely going to see the same effect here as people realize that they will not need to spend more money to get quickly shot and quickly viewed photos online, so the price acceptability will creep down and a $3,000 camera will look silly for Facebook and Flickr. Canon and Nikon will mess with larger sensors than FF just to keep those high margins, and the rest of us will get the price:sensor benefits as the curve bends our way. I love it when that happens. Get ready for the $500 Ricoh GR with an articulating screen and much better video.
There will be a floor of course. Where that is can generally be extrapolated from fixed costs and dynamics like the sensor cost and yields, and the unforgiving costs of batteries, etc.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-21-2013, 10:58 AM
|
| |
Except because of yield limitations and contamination error an FF sensor will always cost at least 2.45 time more than an APS-C one.
And an APS-C one will cost 1.75 times more than a CX/1" one.
So at each price point we'll see different sensors, and since sensor size partly determines form factor...
...not much will change.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-02-2013, 04:48 PM
|
| |
For a DSLR yes, but that difference does not exist if EVF's come to dominate. It's APS or FF agnostic.
That's why I left it off the list.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-02-2013, 11:33 AM
|
| |
The biggest reasons (in order IMO...but I am right) for FF vs. APS:
1) ISO advantage from more signal
2) Better DR related to signal
3) Easier with the wides in lens design especially
4) More legacy backwards compatibility
5) Shallower DOF control
6) Likely greater resolution
Cons:
1) Much more expensive camera body
2) Larger, heavier camera body
3) Less telecentricity for longer FL's
4) Much bigger, long glass
5) Web imaging lessens visible difference via-a-vis APS
6) Newer sensors really require new glass
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
08-01-2013, 03:14 AM
|
| |
Large printing pros are a rapidly declining market (sadly).
We know this because Ford paper and a host if other print support companies are on trouble or have gone away in the last few years.
I'm not saying his is a good thing for the art of photography. I'm saying print capabilities are becoming a very small driver o purchasing decisions.
The reason why Sigma is offering a 1.8 zoom is because their math shows that APS cameras will remain affordable for about 80%+ of the market while FF is simply far too expensive and may actually reach market saturation faster than APS, and may have much slower upgrade (aka consumer reinvestment cycles).
It all depends in how willing the sensor manufacturers are to commoditize FF. sensor production as what happened to APS, and whether a very large segment of consumers would still jump given the huge leap in IQ offered by APS. The industry has a very strong incentive to keep FF in a very high price tier relative to both perceived and actual IQ benefits to the consumer. And FF cameras are quite large where a bi chunk of the market is going the other way.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
06-19-2013, 09:06 AM
|
| |
Yes. And why the 43 has remained so popular. And why 55mm was chosen for the DA* portrait lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
05-27-2013, 08:49 AM
|
| |
The DA*55 is about an 85/2 @135 in real life on APS-C. I have the M85/2 and really to go to 1.4 would 2x the size and get all that 1.4 fuzziness. Sometimes it is just not worth it. Ricoh GR vs Sony RX 1, anyone?
|
|
Forum: Pentax Full Frame
05-23-2013, 06:36 AM
|
| |
A bit overwrought, don't you think?
Pentax made errors and had to sell itself as a brand to stay alive as an engineering project.
FF is a problem because small market share = small volume sales. In turn leading to losses because the cost of an FF system will only sell a few thousand units/year for Pentax.
Pentax has made serous mistakes at marketing and management, both before and after Hoya. The Q is one I definitely see. The K-01 while interesting had no market future and took up resources. The lens line-up is a mess with no focus (sic). I mean there is a 31, 3 35,s, 2 40's, 1 43, 3 50's, and a 55mm. Lenses that look to be FF are still labelled DA while the macros still get the DFA label. Some lenses get the * treatment but underperform while the WR aspect is all over the map, but we can get colours galore, but never consistently between model changes. Video is under-served, tethering was there, now it's gone, but now we're in a wired world and it still doesn't show up. And the flash system is obsolete to the point of embarrassment.
It's a brand all over the map, from pricing on. At least the engineering is still sound. Even when the under-sized the Q's sensor they still got the body right for classic photographic use.
So FF will come when they clean house and the price drops to reasonable levels.
|
