On Jan 12, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Tom C wrote:
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.
But while other makers offer FF as flagship models, APS-C is by far
the largest market segment and will remain so unless the price of
sensors tumbles. If Pentax can achieve leadership in APS-C, they'll be
successful. That seems to be the strategy. Other than long lenses,
which can go both ways, Pentax lens releases continue to be APS-C
only. That suggests that a FF strategy isn't part of their future.
Paul
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.
--
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.
