Comments below: Tom C.
>From: Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <pdml@pdml.net> >To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> >Subject: RE: Next move from Pentax: hints about sensor for next camera(s) >Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:05:53 +0200 > >Tom Wrote: > >Are you sure those lenses are in production? Designed maybe, but I would >think otherwise in the same status as the 645D. They're not making lenses >for a camera that's not on the production line. > >I'm not expecting it or holding my breath, but to me it makes *more sense* >to produce a FF 24 X 36 body than the 645D. Here's why: > >1. Canon and Nikon both now have FF bodies on the market. If Pentax can get >one out in short order they can be #3 to do so, ahead of Sony and Olympus. >That would be a big feather in Pentax's cap. > >2. The sales of a 645D would be relatively small compared to the sales of a >FF 24 x 36 body because the market is smaller. Pentax 35mm body/lens owners >out number Pentax 645 owners by a large factor. Can't begin to guess what >it is, 100-to-1, 1000-to-1? > >3. Moving to a 645 format is much costlier to non-645 system owners because >they must buy into a whole new system. I'd personally be more likely to buy >a FF Canon or Nikon 24 x 36 body if I was going to change systems. Last but >not least it would still fit in the same camera bag. :-) > >4. Pentax can do the in body sensor crop when DA lenses are attached, >preserving the usefulness of the DA lens series for those that have >purchased them. > >5. It can't be any harder for Pentax to design and manufacture a FF 24 x 36 >body than the 645. They have all the basics. Yes they would need to >reeingineer the image processing engine, have a larger LCD, and other >firmware/hardware changes, but that's a given with any new camera model. >The only thing really holding them back would be whether they can obtain a >sensor at a price point that will put the resulting product within reach of >a large number of customers. > > > >REPLY: > >1. The fact that Nikon and Canon have FF camera on the market doesn't make >it easier for Pentax to sell one. As Nikon and Canon FF bodies consist >together at about 1% of the market the potential sales volume for a Pentax >FF is minuscule indeed. I'm sure that the FF market share will increase but >not significantly in the next couple of years. As an FF Pentax will be >compared to Nikon and Canon FF camera it needs to be equal in other >departments as well; not just the sensor. > It's about brand image, not making it easier. I agree other things need to be updated also. If Pentax were to have only 3 DSLR's on the market, $500 range entry level, $1000 dollar range mid level, $2000/2500 FF body, I suspect those buying the high end will be > 1%. It would certainly be a higher number than those buying a 645D. >2. Nobody knows the size of the MF based digital camera market as noone is >really selling any. Mamiya is a microscopic player several times bankrupt >and until a major player in digital cameras actually market an MF digital >camera, the market simply won't happen. Also, the size of the market is >dependent on the price of the 645D; an unknown at this point. My guess is >that a 645D at twice the price of an FF Pentax K-mount Nikon killer will >sell twice as much as that FF camera. >As for lenses; there are much more pofessional grade Pentax MF lenses out >there than Pentax K-mount pro glass. Most of the Pentax K-mount lenses are >kit zooms and the 50/2 lens. None of them use by folks likely to buy a FF >Pentax DSLR. All MF lenses are basically pro lenses in this regard and >Pentax got a significant market share in the MF world; up to 50%. > If there's really no market at present it would be rather foolish for Pentax to sell to it, I think. >3. As Pentax MF cameras are among the most popular MF systems of all times >there are plenty of potential users for this camera. Besides, there are >those who will want a sensor twice the size of any Nikon and Canon thus >obtaining image quality not available from those brands; perhaps optimized >for resolution rather than speed or high ISO performance. > They are? I was pretty sure it was Hassleblad. If they're not making a 67D, for all those legacy 67 lenses, you can subtract those customers out of your count. >5. It is much harder for Pentax to manufacture a K-mount FF camera than the >645D as the FF camera will need to compete with Nikon and Canon whereas the >645D will outperform Nikon and Canon in image quality and compete with >obscenely priced digital backs. In addition, the 645D is built around the >old 645 chassis, mirror, and finder system. Long since payed for. Its >electronics is derived from the K10D or coming K-mount bodies. >It also doesn't face the same demand for fast AF and image processing speed >as a Nikon/Canon FF competitor will as it will be targeted at high >resolution uses; typically landscape and studio use. > > I doubt Pentax can produce a high MP MF camera for much less than it's competitors. The 645D would be competing with those high end FF cameras from Canon, maybe Nikon. If they can use an old 645 design they can use the MZ-D design also. There will always be spec differences, but the major ones are sensor size, MP, noise, buffer size. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
