From: Tom C
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:
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.
I didn't mean "market leader" in terms of market share so much as in
terms of innovation; TAV mode, weather-proofing, in camera HDR ...
Being a market leader in terms of innovation (adding real value) should
help to sell Pentax cameras.
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.
Doesn't mean they can't or won't in the future. Seems to me it depends
on how many extra cameras they think it might sell. From my point of
view, it's about adding value to increase demand. It makes sense to do
it if they can improve profit thereby.
It also makes sense from the point of view of SDM lenses. What use is
the faster focusing speed if the camera can't use it?
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.
I kind of blow hot & cold on the 645D. My *CURRENT* view is medium
format digital has to offer the same kinds of advantage over the DSLR
that medium format film offered over 35mm film.
I saw those as boiling down to larger image real estate giving higher
resolution for a not too much higher price. Those advantages gave medium
format commercial viability.
For medium format digital to be commercially viable, it has to offer the
advantage of comparable superior images at a competitive price point. To
me that means "full frame", not another crop sensor.
I think it's going to take someone who can market a 6x4.5 cm sensor with
the same kind of pixel density found in current generation sensors ...
at a price no higher than Nikon's or Canon's top of the line DSLRs.
I make it anywhere from 37MP (Nikon D700 pixel density) to 65MP (Canon
FF pixel density) to 100+MP (K7 pixel density) ... call it 50MP for
around $10K street price.
I don't have any idea if that's possible for ANYONE to do. I'm pretty
sure it's beyond current state of the art ... not getting the sensor
size, but getting the sensor size AND meeting the price point.
Rumors about the 645D indicate a 39MP sensor & a $10K price point. If
true, that's hitting pretty close to what I think is needed for
commercial viability.
But again, that's just my opinion on what medium format digital has to
deliver to be commercially viable. I think Pentax can do it.
--
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.
