Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 02/01/07, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> There was an interview article with Nikon on FF subject. Among other things >> they said, they have been observing Canon 5D sales for a while but it never >> went beyond 5% of total DSLR sales. FF sensor cost in case of 5D is still >> over 6 times that of APS-C. > > Of that I have no doubt, but even if they are aggressively pricing > their 5D ( as Adam suggests) I'd bet that they still make more profit > per unit as a percentage than Pentax does on it's non-discounted > lines.
I think that they may actually be loss-leading the 5D at the moment (given the massive rebates on it right now). It may be that they make more per unit on normal pricing than the K100D or K110D do (Given the very aggressive pricing in that space), I doubt the same applies to the K10D. The 5D hasn't been what I'd call a massive success for Canon. It's seriously eaten into 1DsmII sales due to being smaller, lighter and having better high-ISO performance and it doesn't insulate the gap in Canon's line between the pro bodies and the amateur bodies (Unlike the D200, the 5D simply doesn't offer the flat out speed or the toughness of a semi-pro body like the F100 or EOS 3, while the 30D doesn't quite either). It's certainly no failure though. > >> Nikon says that they are always watching the >> market demand but for now, they do not see FF cameras being popular. In the >> meantime, DX lenses (their DA equivalent) are becoming ever popular and >> settling almost as default DSLR format. >> Despite some speculations that their F mount is too small for FF DSLR, that >> is a myth. They have sufficient margin left for FF digital lenses. > > I'm sure it's true for Pentax too, the speculation that a wide mount > is required to properly facilitate FF digital is indeed a myth. Just > take a look at the size of the rear elements in many specially > designed digital lenses, they are often but a fraction of the diameter > of the mount. > >> So, my guess is that before FF sensor cost comes down sufficiently, APS-C >> sensors design would have progress farther and satisfy the need of most >> demanding photographers. >> Besides, even if they offer FF DSLR, that does not at all mean that they >> suddenly discontinue APS-C lenses. I am sure they offer different sizes as >> two different formats, i.e., FF is NOT an upgrade to APS-C. > > Where does a digital MF body fit into this equation? 3rd format, really the equivalent of LF in the film world (Expensive, slow and extremely high resolution) while 35mm FF replaces MF and DX format replaces 35mm. > >> I for one would much prefer compact size of DA lenses and bodies. > > I really don't believe that there is really nothing stopping lenses > and bodies that will cover full 35mm frame from being much the same > size as the current bodies and DA lenses (but for the case of some of > the wide angles). > I'd tend to agree here, with the exception of wide-angles of course. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
