>For Pentax to remain viable, their next DSLR offering has to be as much of an >improvement over the K7 as the K7 was over the K20. I know that's going to be >hard to achieve.
>I think full frame and improved auto-focus speed is going to have to be part >of that. And they're going to have to have glass available to take advantage >of those improvements. >I think Pentax can be competitive, even a market leader. If that's what they >want. I basically agree with some caveats: 1. Probably the only reason Pentax (camera division) is financially viable at the moment is they've been taken over/subsidized by Hoya. Even that relationship is in some degree of jeopardy based upon recent statements by Hoya, and there exists some possibility that the brand may come up for sale. I'm not discounting that their product offering has improved since the *ist D time and they have turned a small profit. 2. I don't see Pentax ever being a market leader. That would take some remarkable changes at Pentax, both technologically and financially, combined with essentially the reverse occurring at the other big 2. Remember that Pentax (to the last of my knowledge) has around a 5% market share. Unless Canon and Nikon turn into the GM and Chrysler of the camera industry, I don't see much changing. 3. I agree that FF seems to be a neccessity, unless Pentax wants to be the niche player it is now. The only camera company (not counting Samsung clones) offering only APS-C sensor bodies, sandwiched between Canon, Nikon, Sony on one tier, and the 4/3 makers on the other. 4. People have been complaining about Pentax AF performance at least since I bought my Pz-1p in 97/98, no doubt before that as well. That's given them close to a decade and a half to invent or purchase the technology to be on a par with the competition. They haven't, which means they either couldn't or wouldn't. 5. I think the medium format 645D route is a dead end path and a waste of resources that will not prove profitable in the end. A lot of R&D dollars spent going after a tiny market segment that is essentially already claimed, it being largely former medium format users that switched to the high end digital Canons. I don't see it doing anything other than allowing the claim that they have a medium format system. The only real benefit I see is if they really went all out in R&D and that technology trickled down into smaller sensor bodies. But based again on history I don't see that as likely. 6. In the end, the best I'm hoping for is that Pentax comes out with a FF body and stays a camera manufacturer and generally improves their products. That's about all I'm expecting. Tom On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:32 AM, John Sessoms <[email protected]> wrote: > From: David Savage >> >> On 12/01/2010, Mark Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > David Savage wrote: >>> > >>>> >>>> >>2010/1/12 Mark Roberts <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>> >>> BTW: John Carlson told me he probably won't be able to make it to >>>>> >>> GFM >>>>> >>> this year, as he's trying to cut down on the amount of time he >>>>> >>> spends >>>>> >>> on the road. Probably just as well - by the middle of the year I >>>>> >>> expect the *only* questions he'll be fielding will include the >>>>> >>> words >>>>> >>> "full frame". >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>Frankly, if Pentax can't significantly improve it's AF & exposure >>>> >>consistency then putting a FF sensor in their current tech would be a >>>> >>serious waste of time. >>> >>> > >>> > That's simply untrue. AF is not a major issue for some people. I'd >>> > much prefer a high-res FF camera with current AF capability to another >>> > 15MP APS-C camera with state-of-the-art AF. >> >> If Pentax were to introduce a FF camera, it would have to represent >> the sate of the art in their DSLR line-up. Otherwise the only people >> to buy it would be the Pentax faithful. > > Who is Sony expecting to sell their new full frame body to? Do they have a > reservoir of "Sony faithful" to draw on? > > I think it would need BETTER auto-focus than is currently available. Maybe > not "state of the art", but enough improvement to make it worth trading up. > > But whether anyone beyond the "Pentax faithful" would buy it is going to > depend on the value of the entire package. > > Pentax has to sell full-frame lenses as well as a full frame body. It's been > pointed out here before that the camera manufacturer makes most of their > money selling lenses to be used with the bodies. > > The following is strictly MY OPINION, FWIW ... > > For Pentax to remain viable, their next DSLR offering has to be as much of > an improvement over the K7 as the K7 was over the K20. I know that's going > to be hard to achieve. > > I think full frame and improved auto-focus speed is going to have to be part > of that. And they're going to have to have glass available to take advantage > of those improvements. > > I think Pentax can be competitive, even a market leader. If that's what they > want. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
