Jump to content

I know this has been overdone, but hear me out.


peter_sanders2

Recommended Posts

<p>Again and again, there have been rumors of Pentax full frame. These have mostly been wishful thinking. At PentaxForums, there is record of a correspondence between Pentax and an administrator of said forums, seen <a href="<a href="http://www.pentaxforums.com/news/pentax-and-full-frame.html" target="_blank">www.pentaxforums.com/news/pentax-and-full-frame.html</a>">here</a>. Assuming it is taken before the R&D team and scheduled for production after a working prototype, etc., what kind of time frame are we looking at here? What price range?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Well, we have no idea whether Pentax was already working on a full-frame DSLR. If not, and if they were to start such a project in the near future, I doubt it would get to market in 2012; I'd guess sometime in 2013. As for price, if they were sensible (given Pentax's current underdog role in the DSLR marketplace), they should undercut the Canon 5D Mark II and Nikon D700 by enough to get people's attention. Specs ought to be at least 18 MP (same as the new Canon 1DX) with usable ISO out to at least 6400 (preferably 12800). Personally I couldn't care less what the burst shooting rate is or what video formats are supported, so I'll let other people speculate on those.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Assuming it is taken before the R&D team and scheduled for production after a working prototype, etc., what kind of time frame are we looking at here? What price range?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm 99.1% sure that this is not going to happen, but we can play the parlor game. Planning, engineering, design, testing, and then tooling, manufacturing and QA etc... would take about two years. If they pursue in-body IS, then add 9 months.</p>

<p>I don't think Pentax has the production capacity to pump out a whole new DSLR system, plus increased production on the 645D. And I don't think they can outsource much due to the pressure brought on by both the earthquake and the Thailand floods to fulfill existing product orders of other makers. Unlike Ricoh, Canon, Nikon, and Sony are camera companies and will overbid to get their products into the market.</p>

<p>We didn't mention lenses either. They would need to retool significantly for that too. Any pro-spec DSLR has to have at least 3-4 standard focal ranges of state-of-the-art lenses to be taken seriously by the actual people who would spend the capital on the product. This excludes most of the people on popular forums who are rolling their fantasies of a Pentax FF camera. I think Pentax's days of being the cheap price brand would have to be over, so for the body $2800 US min.</p>

<p>With perhaps the exception of the few FA Limited lens still in production, Pentax would have to redesign a lens family from scratch incorporating both new materials, and more costly, new manufacturing processes and designs. The operative words here are zoom lenses that can compete with the standard Nikon, Canon, and Sony offerings. That's really hard to do from scratch, so add another year for two basic zooms to hit the streets. Your basic 24-70mm f2.8 would run about $1600 and the 70-200mm f2.8 another $3000.</p>

<p>Oh, a few more little things: building a retail network; providing dealer incentives and professional support for professional customers of the retail network; creating a marketing and advertising presence that would generate the volume of sales to make this worthwhile.</p>

<p>Do realize that Ricoh is a business-to-business printing and document management hardware and software manufacturer. This consumer camera thing is a little low-risk side venture to them--maybe even a handy black hole for keeping taxes down. I don't see where a professional DSLR line (beyond the 645D and even that is questionable as a retail product) would make any sense.</p>

<p>But it's fun to play.</p>

<p>ME</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'd suggest ME is correct in that simple "scaling up" of IS isn't as easy as it might appear and since the chip and related parts will have much greater mass, will require an entire redesign for IS. Consider that the 645D does not feature IS.</p>

<p>As for the question of FF ever happening. Well maybe some day but in the next 2-4 years, I'd bet 99.5% against it. As ME clearly stated, this is a lot more than developing a body. It's a system and a support network etc. Plus this theory that they will sell boat loads of them is silly. The body will most likely be around $2500-3000.00 (the new D800 is rumoured to be around $3899) and if you own all crop sensor lenses, then you're looking at a $5-10K investment in a body and new glass. Plus this "Legacy" lens stuff is crap. Sure they attach to the body and can take a picture. But they are in no way functional. If Pentax actually made them functionally linked to the camera, then it would be worth owning Takumars but as it is now, they are like shooting with your eyes closed.</p>

<p>If you don't have a professional need for a FF body, are you really going to make that change? I don't think so. Plus Pentax knows (or should know) that they will never get Canikon users to switch. The only ones that will even consider it, will have recently switched from Pentax and might consider a switch back but only when the lens line is filled out and the second or 3rd generation FF body has proven itself.</p>

<p>What I really think is 75% of the people "wanting" FF only do, so they can say they are invested in a brand that offers it. Not they they will ever buy it but that Pentax is playing in the big leagues. Bragging rights but no more.<br>

So as a result, who will Pentax Sell FF to? Only existing shooters that own a Pentax APSc body? How does that enhance the market share or bottom line? Not at all.</p>

<p>I'd just like to offer my personal situation as an example. 30 years shooting Pentax from the Spottie right to the K20D. My income comes from a camera. I finally got tired of the durability issues with the DA* lenses and the K20D bodies. I now shoot Nikon (D700) and have for 1.5 years now. I love Pentax and many of it's features. I miss much of what the brand offers. Would I switch back if there was a FF body available tomorrow? No. 101% no.<br /> First I'd want to see how the camera performs under hard use. I'd let the first adopters find out what issues the new body has. To see if Pentax builds it better than bodies from the past and is reliable. Also see how it will perform against the current FF bodies.<br /> Second and this is huge, I can't afford to shoot 2 systems. There's no way I'd drop $10,000 + (that's what it would cost at a minimum to get started) on a system while keeping my current gear for 3-6 months until I'm totally sure it works as needed.</p>

<p>I think Pentax knows this. People "wanting" FF don't "need" FF and will quickly vote with their wallets if a new system comes to market. IMO if Pentax did this and had to develop a new flash system, new lens line, new body (really they would need 2 to be taken seriously by Pro's), new sales channels and new support network, the brand would be bankrupt in under a year. We have to remember that this is a huge investment in sales and production from a brand that has a 5% market share. On top of that, we are in a world economy that is very uncertain, this is a bad time to take this type of gamble.<br /> If they are smart, they will continue with the path they are on. Maybe they should not waste any more energy on this and finally redesign the DA* lenses which are long overdue to be replaced.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sublime post Peter.

 

Re: scaling the IS, this morning I spoke with a friend who is a manufacturing design engineer. He thought the IS piece would

scale all right but the whole body would be significantly heavier and larger. The Sony A900 is a 5 lb body. For Pentax to

release a product that reflects unique and expected Pentax design values of small and ergonomic would require a serious

redesign systemically. Also realize that the processor in that camera would have to be dual, regardless of an IS add-on.

 

All great in theory, but suddenly we're lookin' at a $4-5,000 camera before any lenses.

 

ME

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>-what your number?-Bravo! Demands by Pentaxeros somehow end-up on full frame!..As much as I can remember fare chance for RICOHN in 70s buy Pentax- you can trow brick in your neighbor window and do equal and right wishes on new equipment!Thank you Peter ,wormer-up old pentaxian on cold saturday night by good news!</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I read this and other Pentax related forums. I have never heard a single RUMOR that a Pentax FF camera is in the works. I HAVE heard a lot of wishful thinking and predictions of Pentax' doom if they don't attempt to keep up with Nikon and Canon.</p>

<p>The thread on Pentaxforums.com that was alluded to was about a letter that the moderator and someone else sent to one of the Pentax European importers. Everyone got all excited because they actually received a response. However, if any of the posters had actually READ the response and had their reading comprehension turned on, they would have seen that the response was almost exclusively an ackowledgement of receipt of the letter. They said something about passing it on to Pentax Japan. That's ALL the response was; "Thank you for writing. Don't call us, we'll call you".</p>

<p>There is absolutely no question in my mind that Pentax has the technological ability to produce a full frame camera. But, there is also no question in my mind that there is absolutely NO business case to be made for such a move. There is no way that Pentax could ever make a serious dent in the Canikon full frame market dominance. Trying to do so would be a very, very risky venture on Pentax' part.</p>

<p>The price of every camera sold must carry a pro-rated portion of the up front costs of developing the product. If you sell a million cameras, the amount attached to each camera is very small. IMHO, Pentax would sell less that one tenth the number of full frame cameras that either Nikon or Canon does. Therefore, the development costs that must be included in the price of EVERY CAMERA would be ten times what C & N must include. That puts further price pressure on Pentax.</p>

<p>In short, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN!</p>

<p>I'm sure that Ricoh is going to concentrate on building market share in the markets that they are already in, p & s, mirrorless, and aps-c dslrs.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4509288">Michael Elenko</a> I agree with Mike on this point not that I would not love to be wrong I think if they were to bring out such It would have been done by Now : They put a lot of time and Money into the 645 camera its just not right at this time, and their sales on the 645 may not be working out ?</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>not that I would not love to be wrong</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lauren, I would love to be wrong too for purely selfish reasons. Of course winning that battle could mean losing the war. . .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>their sales on the 645 may not be working out ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From the little pieces of reading here and there, it seems like the 645D sales have exceeded Pentax expectations. The number I've seen floating about is they move 500 units per month which is king of the hill for medium format these days. Indeed, my intuitive guess is that the 645D may be the most profitable--or even the only profitable--product in the Pentax lineup. No one outside of Hoya and Ricoh knows of course.</p>

<p>If you examine Ricoh's core business of document management and business printing, it's not a stretch to see how the 645D could be exploited into a major money maker more than any other Pentax product. We'll see how much longer it is available as a consumer product, rather than as a core component of an archive management system for institutions and corporations.</p>

<p>ME</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>To address John B, much of the increased cost of a FF body is the 50% larger sensor. Sensor chips are expensive. Second is a much more durable body from the chasis to the shutter. Maybe even more than those is that there's much less a price war in this sector and being the cheapest is no reason for success. Success is very much based on the system and brand and not just the body alone. Manufacturers have held their prices and I assume will continue to do so.</p>

<p>As for the 645D. It's sales have exceeded Pentax's expectations many times over. Orginally, they were only doing a limited run of 200 units for the Japanese market. They were no serious plans for a world wide roll out. The first run sold out before the first camera was ready to ship and they realized there was a market. Plus they were drastically cheaper than the current bodies available. MF shooters are a different lot and not the same buyer as the FF crowd.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone got all excited because they actually received a response. However, if any of the posters had actually READ the response and had their reading comprehension turned on, they would have seen that the response was almost exclusively an ackowledgement of receipt of the letter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Paul, nailed it. This letter was nothing more than wishful thinking that the world was going to change because some fool at Pentax Eu decided to reply. They won't make that mistake again. As forum members and buyers we have a simplistic view of the engineering, costs and logistical challenges in designing a new platform and related system to support a FF body. I agree with you that Pentax can do it but the question really is, would it be wise to even consider it? My suggestion is that no it isn't. It would be the death of this company. </p>

<p>Consider the venerable D700. Often considered the benchmark camera from any brand. Partly due to reasonable cost (at $2500), partly because of it's great IQ in both DR and high ISO up to 6400. Partly because of it's rugged construction and top tier feature set. Now put that body out with a Pentax logo/mount. Keep it in your line for 4 years with no updates and with a 12 MP sensor. Would it sell to Pentax shooters? Particularly against the K-5? Particularly with only a few pre digital lenses that work on a FF body? I contend that unlike Nikon's sales (where the camera is constantly sold out), the Pentax version would collect dust on the shelves.</p>

<p>Why is the Nikon successful? Mostly because it's part of a much larger system. An entire series of flashes, lenses and bodies. They have 3 FF cameras in the line (actually 4) and the shooter is buying not just the D700 but a system that has a very clear upgrade path, should they choose to move in that direction. They have retained a few pre-digital lenses but have an entire series of lense dedicted to this format. Developing the popular $2000 14-24mm f2.8 had to be a huge R&D expense. Same for the $1899+ 24-70mm f2.8. Pentax would have to have these and a number of other lenses ready to sell as soon as the body is ready. Lens R&D takes even longer than bodies do. And lets not talk about old FA lenses that would work. They aren't going to start building those tomorrow.<br>

Pentax can build a FF system but do they have the money and should they even try? NOPE in capital letters. There just isn't the market for them.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I started reading this thread rolling my eyes and thinking to myself, "Oh no, not another one." Thank you SO SO SO SO much, ME and PZ, for pulling this thread back down to reality. I couldn't have explained it better myself. There's no fullframe Pentax coming in the foreseeable future. If you need one, buy an old 35mm film camera, step up to the 645 Digital, or do what most photographers do and supplement your setup with a system that exists like the D700 or 5D. Then again, most of you guys that think you need full-frame really don't.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Not quickly, but on APSC, the marketing team is treating every lens as x1.5. They WILL NOT come out with a 600/4 on APSC. That is my main reason for wanting FF. Right now, they see their 300mm/4 as that, and their 200mm/2.8 as the 300mm/2.8. That won't work on FF. It will eventually happen, though, with a FF DSLR coming out.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Peter are you in the market right now for a long lens?<br /> If so, get the stellar Sigma 500f4.5 EX. Hands down as good as it gets in long fast glass and at $4999.00 it's about half the old price of an original Pentax 600/4.</p>

<p>I suggest you re-read Michael's Lincoln' quote above. He spot on with that one.</p>

<p>I just had a look at that thread on Pentax forums. 80 pages!! About 900 posts. No wonder Jim got them to drink the Kool-aid so easily.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>It will eventually happen, though, with a FF DSLR coming out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter Sanders,<br>

Let me confirm: regardless of what was written in the responses, it appears that you believe that Pentax will release both an FF camera and a 600mm f4 lens. <br>

Really?<br>

What do you need to photograph with both pieces of equipment?</p>

<p>ME</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>@ME:<br>

This is not the case. I know that there will not be a 600mm/4 while they have APSC format. They already have that. The 300mm/4 is effectively a 450mm/4, close to a 500mm/4. With full frame, I expect that (assuming they did it at the right time and hadn't gone under by then) within ten years, they would release a FF super telephoto. So yes, I expect FF and super telephoto, but for reasons and with time. I don't expect a FF DSLR from PENTAX until 2015. The Photo.net community, I figured, would know more, so I asked this question to confirm. After that, they would need longer lenses for the same FOV. They would need a new telephoto of at least 500mm/4. I already have that for APSC, essentially (though at f/5.6). However, a 600mm/4 on APS-C would be 900mm/4, and would be way outside of my price range if it is near that of the old one. If I wait, either the used price will go down, the film-era ones will go way down used, or both.</p>

<p>@PZ:<br>

I have considered that. Strongly. I lean towards the 300mm/2.8 from Sigma, though. I have basically stopped hoping for a PENTAX super telephoto, so now I have a Nikon F-50 that I picked up for $20 on eBay (with 28-200mm/3.5-5.6 AF and MF 50mm/1.4) and am watching for a cheap (all things considered; I know it will exceed 2K) Nikon for 600mm/4.</p>

<p>I'm not a "fruitcake;" I gave thought to this, and I am completely willing to accept it may be wrong, but nobody knows. It is all just theory, examples, and counterexamples. I think that it is unreasonable not to expect this in time. I just want to know how much time.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I think you better start writing a check to Nikon. No way will Pentax have fullframe within the next 4 years</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree of course, but I do think Peter's strategy of getting started with a Nikon film SLR + a 600mm lens feels a good one. I'm not quite certain because Peter never answered my question about what he needed to photograph with that setup, thus it's hard to tell if the tool choice is appropriate.</p>

<p>An alternative is to purchase a FF Canon 5D--they are under $1000 used now and work well enough.<br /> Anyway to me, if you really <em>need</em> a 600mm lens, camera brand choice is almost secondary--it's the reach and your talents that really matter. Most of the folks I know using a 600mm lens are parked in a shooting well at sports stadiums, or traveling around in a motorhome touring well-known birding sites in retirement--not a bad way to do it at all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So yes, I expect FF and super telephoto, but for reasons and with time. I don't expect a FF DSLR from PENTAX until 2015.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the part I don't understand. Let's skip the pure business rationale that was covered earlier, even if it did make sense. There's an underlying assumption in Peter's logic that for Pentax the format path will be: APS-C>FF>645D.</p>

<p>To me, a simple look at what's happened with technology capabilities and product offerings shows that for Pentax this will probably be silly. It seems to me that most technological advancements have occurred in the APS-C format to the point that prints come quite close to FF at most printed output. As the K-5 surely demonstrates, the gap is narrowing with each generation. And the generations are turning over quickly.</p>

<p>There doesn't seem to be an analogous generational improvement with new FF cameras. Have any of the current FF offerings been released after 2009? It seems like the technology has mostly plateaued to a very functional configuration that serves its users quite well. And as the lens lineups for both Canon and Nikon are oriented towards FF, this level of FF camera capabilities serves big profits too. After all, the development costs were sunk years ago.</p>

<p>Pentax has nothing like this, why would they create it? Pentax has never been about big cameras.</p>

<p>By the time Pentax could realistically roll out an FF camera, APS-C technology may provide the same benefits and quality. That's not very profound.</p>

<p>But what Pentax does have is the 645D. If Ricoh liberates capital, then building out that platform would continue to differentiate the brand in the market and make a profit.</p>

<p>ME</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Maybe with tech and engineering advances, they could slim down the 645d technology to be closer to the size and speed of other brands' FF cameras. That's a big IF of course (and I realize due to physics certain things cannot get smaller like the distance required between the lens and sensor).<br>

They have this successful and functional platform with the 645D - so why not leverage that instead? If possible and they can pull it off, it might leapfrog their FF competitors.<br>

Or on that note, even cramming a K5 into something the size of a K-x/r would also be appealing. <em>I'd</em> probably get one anyway. :)<br>

Just daydreaming here of course, but Pentax seems to be better at doing their own thing than following the pack. I guess the Q is an example of this, but not an appealing one to me at this point.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Matt, what you describe about cramming a larger camera into a smaller one is precisely what happens with digital cameras. Canon, for example, has the same sensor in all of their APS cameras: 7D, 60D, and T3i. The difference is pretty much completely in the ergonomics<br>

Nikon, also, has been doing this for ages. Their D80 was a D50 body with much of the internals and viewfinder of the D200. It was successful enough that they've continued the trend. The D300, D90, and D5000 all share near-identical image quality, and their newer sensor from the D7000 (same Sony sensor as the K-5) has been shoehorned into the D5100. The difference is, given the size and price difference, they just remove features that less serious photographers will need or find important.<br>

They can't realistically reduce the size of the K-5 any more. If the K-r's successor is just a K-r body with a K-5 sensor, that would be doable, but you end up with the same cramped space, so you get the lower grade shutter (lower fps, less rated life), worse meter, smaller battery, less space for processor, etc. Go read up on the difference between a D7000 and D5100, and you'll get an idea of what a smaller K-5 would be.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...