Hi Rob, My comments iin-line.
Ken On 1/02/07 5:10 PM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 hear the same thing that Adam said. From the cost of FF sensor (fairly well published), I cannot see 5D making much profit, but I would not argue that 5D had higher margin than K10D. But this is similar to higher margin on larger cars, plus 5D has no competition now. But how much it is contributing financially to Canon is another story. They are not selling enough numbers. Re Pentax, I would suppose their margin level is compatible (plus or minus) with similar models. It is not a top end model that they can put higher margin. But obviously, it is contributing to Pentax financially (since K100D) and that's the only important thing :-). >> 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. True. Nikon specifically listed some of their lenses to prove it. >> 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? I do not know and I am not knowledgeable about it. But from what I hear, one of the things which differentiate pentax from others is the existence of 645/67, i.e., pretty much a full line maker. There is a surprisingly strong underlining market demand for 645D which Pentax wish to respond. And also, there are so many of their 645 lenses around. They can position 645D as their professional line, which it is, but it is not 35mm. There is a large market who has millions of K mount lenses and if FF ever becomes necessity, I would think that pentax would make a decision irrespective of 645D. When C 9and N too) are trying to enter into the traditional MF market with FF DSLR, including mom and pap portrait studio (besides filed photographers), Pentax would not ignore such move. But I do not know which (FF or improved APS) would be more popular by then :-). > >> 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). Yes, it only affects on longer FL, but it's only for lenses. Bodies will remain big (relatively) because of film size mirror box etc (which many makers have been using for APS DSLR as well). Dedicated APS DSLR bodies would be kept compact. And then, when EVF becomes a usable proposition....... :-). Anyway, my take is, while APS-C sensor is the product of accident (so to speak), it fits well the current DSLR design and might become the default standard. At least Pentax (and possibly Nikon) seem to think so. They can have Canon spend money and explore the market potential. When needed, there are many suppliers of good FF size sensors (at cost now). And CCD might be shifting from Bayer array to multilayer structure (Fuji. There are many who want Fuji and Nikon merge) by then. It's a bit volatile for anyone to venture into FF, I suppose. But then, current Pentax offering is excellent and I do not even think about FF. No need for it for my purpose anyway (and I am not a pixel peeper either). -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
