Why Pentax needs full frame

I'm loving my recently acquired K3 and am staggered by the sharpness of the images I'm seeing even compared to the K5. I'm watching the full frame possibility with interest although in truth I'm getting better results from the K3 than any camera I have ever owned - including full frame film cameras shooting high quality slide film. So the reality is that as a photographer I might not actually need anything better than this. Worth noting I said need, not want - of course if Pentax do launch a full frame camera then I will no doubt want to upgrade to it at some point and in truth I probably will.

The truth is though that in many ways Pentax needs full frame more than I do. As a company they can only charge so much for a DSLR camera with an APSC format sensor. That price level is driven by the market principally but I would suggest doesn't extend much beyond £1000 body only whereas full frame cameras are more expensive in the marketplace and thus a Pentax full frame DSLR can command prices in the £1500-£2000 range in my view. This is a big win for Pentax when the production cost of a pro orientated APSC body is likely not very different to a pro orientated full frame sensor one. In short if the production costs are similar but you can sell one product for 50% more than the other then as a company making the product with the higher market value makes absolute sense.

Will I or many others take significantly better pics with a full frame body - probably not. Will Pentax make more money/profit - probably yes. I thus do not understand why they haven't done it already!!

Views?

Saxon

Why no FF? = 645Z
They would not have a market for FF, it's already amply covered.

Yep.

I'm intrigued as to how much of the production cost of a digital camera is the sensor nowadays, from pinhead size in a phone to the mentioned 645Z. Does anyone know?

I think the gulf between APC and the 645Z is far too great - both size- and cost-wise!

They need something in between to cater to the people who already have the smaller format bodies and want to "move-up" without the huge expense involved in changing both the body and all their lenses - this point has been made again and again, and I'm sure it is true!

They also need to show both the general photographically-oriented populace and the general public that they are competitors in the Big Boys market and can produce both "affordable AND also "desirable" cameras - a bit like the car companies which are now "splitting" and distinguishing their ranges into "popular" and "luxury" cars (e.g. Toyota/Lexus, Renault/Infinity, etc.) where there is actually a lot of underlying mechanical similarity but distinct target-market differences, and which the owners of the "popular" cars can aspire to "move up" to with confidence but without completely changing their brand-loyalty.

From a purely marketing viewpoint this post is spot on. Very succinctly put.

The gulf in price as he says is too big between APS-C and 645Z. A typical Pentax APS-C investment assuming a K-3 , two or three decent quality lenses, some filters is likely to be approx £2000-£2500.

An equivalent scale of investment in Pentax MFT is likely to be a 645Z, two or three lenses, plus filters and maybe one or two extra accessories..say £10,000! Sure there are a small number of very wealthy enthusiasts who can afford to lose £1500+ in depreciation alone every year on this system but really the only market is the pro market...and how many paid photo jobs nowadays are there able to fund this level of investment?

If APS-C represents the base of the pyramid in number of users and the 645Z is the pinnacle then FF slices the pyramid horizontally but much closer to the base than the pinnacle and in marketing terms it will attract well heeled enthusiasts, semi pro and full time pro.

Whether people actually really need FF ...that's another argument altogether.

Strange that given the number of people saying Pentax need full frame that non of them have done any simulated FF using stitched APS-C shots this can actually be better than FF if you crop off some of the soft edges. I doubt that any of them would even know how many shots would be needed to stitch a FF shot from APS-C

--

I don't know how you conclude none. I certainly have - my townscape in my retrospective is 36megapixels so comparable to a Nikon D810.

However there is an obvious problem with stitching - a turbulent sea for instance.

For me lenses are more important. I see the need to use the FA31mm as a 31mm lens as a reason in itself for a Pentax ff.

Absolutely!

I can't make anywhere near the best of APS-C - and so I would not be going FF anyway (and especially as I am getting on a bit, and will soon be on pensions income full-time, and the extra body weight alone would not be welcome)

My preference is for not a lot of post-processing because of the time it can take - and I'm not very good at it at all anyway!

Some panoramic software will automatically create panoramas from all suitable shots it finds in a directory that you point it at.

For anyone interested in simulating FF with a Pentax use portrait format take 3 No shots overlapping by 40% and stitch them. 28mm to 50mm lens should work OK.

40% overlap is quite big, but that's what the calcs work out at. Two shots won't quite be wide enough. You could go bigger than FF by giving the 3 shots 20% overlap.

--

Indeed, why make a 1.5 to 2K FF when everyone will spend 7K on a 645Z on interest free credit and start buying 645 lenses.

I don't agree with your statement.

Best regards

Depends upon a number of factors.

If one is producing a pocket digital camera such as a Sony pocket sized digital camera; sorry cannot recall camera model numbers, but the pocket digital which has a 20x optical and a 20mp sensor... Less than one quarter of that cost is in the sensor. The same can be said for comparable models such as Olympus pockets cameras.

Let's get to the Pentax label... The MX has a sensor that cost about the same as the model type listed above, as does the Pentax bridge camera. For Pentax dslr's - for the initial run it just depends upon how new the sensor is. For the K3, for the initial price for the camera - it could easily be looking at 40%++ on the sensor alone for the cost of the camera body. Over time though that cost goes down considerably.

Cameras such as the K5 were of similar numbers, much like the K-01, and even the K50.

Medium format is an entirely different spectrum. Not sure what the Pentax numbers are, but... Some of the Mamiya medium format cameras have sensors that are about 50-60%++ of the cost of the camera body. Hasselblad is actually less, one is paying for the name.

Give me the name and model number of a camera and I'll try to run the exact percentages and numbers for you

Even the full frame market is changing for the likes of Canon & Nikon if you look at what Sony are doing with the A7mkll. Personally I think Sony are really onto something interesting and when the line up of e mount lenses increases, I think Sony will be gaining a lot of money from the photography market. The longer Pentax fail to release a FF model the further they will fall behind. Brand loyalty is difficult to maintain when other brands are pushing the photographic envelope and offering more. The K3 is a great camera capable of producing pro level work, but its limited to certain situations and environments and thats where Pentax leave people high and dry, the 645Z is an epic camera, but so is the price of the body and glass to go with it. If Sony can release full frame mirrorless models such as the A7, A7r & As without a huge line up of lenses whats stopping Pentax putting out a full frame model? There's is enough full frame glass about to get people started and plenty of people willing to move up from APS-C. The issue is about choice and sadly Pentax seem to miss this point.

When Pentax launched the *ist D, it was a long time after there were DSLRs on the market by other manufacturers. I was keen to wait for their version as, at the time, I had a large number of K-mount and M42 lenses I hoped would be usable on their offering - and of course they were.

However, those wishing to buy a DSLR with no brand loyalty already had a choice. I wonder what percentage of the market the Pentax took?

For Pentax to offer a FF DSLR, it really has to be special, as like before the FF ship has already sailed. Their best bet is (as usual) on cost; the digital medium format 645 has had wonderful reviews and although costly by FF standards, it is way cheaper than most of the opposition in its class.

I'd very much like an FF camera, but my K3 is about as much (and probably more) than I need. That doesn't mean I wouldn't buy one if they make one at some point!