12-12-2011, 08:43 PM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1323706886' post='13670']
Totally insane if you ask me. They can't remotely stand the pressure from Canon, Nikon and Sony. They would have to develop ALL zoom lenses from scratch just to mention the most obvious nightmare. All based on a niche within a ~15% full format niche. Harakiri. They could go for training on this job over at Olympus.
The rumors about an APS-C mirrorless system make MUCH more sense to me. Imagine a tiny camera and all the Pentax expertise with pancakes. In a developing market segment. Now that would be something.
[/quote]
"Full Frame" (i.e. 135 film equivalent) size is irrelevant in this day and age. In the old days, cameras had to built around existing film formats. These days, camera designers have free reign to choose their sensor size. There will be more and more fracturing of the imaging size, the Nikon 1 is an example of this growing trend. The reasoning is simple, it allows Nikon to undercut μ4/3 (in terms of manufactuing costs) in the same way that μ4/3 did to APS-C. To the average consumer (the ones who keep Nikon in business), there is little difference between a 1 and μ4/3 camera. So, Nikon can sell at a similar price and make more profit margin, or undercut μ4/3 and take more market share. In Nikon's world they arrived at that sensor size as the optimum for their purposes. In the film days, they would have had to follow an existing film format and the only way to "cheap out" would've been on electro-mechanical features or materials.
So, there is nothing inherently special about a 135 sized digital camera for a company like Pentax. In an ideal enthusiast world, they would come out with that format camera so all the cheap bastards like myself could use all the cheap legacy Pentax lenses that we have hoarded...but we would only buy it if it was relatively cheap like a K-5 or Alpha-850 (which didn't do that well). Obviously, that situation doesn't suit Pentax very well because they don't really make money on low-profit margin low-volume full-frame bodies.
So, more likely they will have to carve out a totally different niche. It would make a lot more sense for them be a "μ645d"...a MILC with a 33x33 sensor (splits the difference between 645d and 135d) with a K-mount and a dedicated adaptor for 645d lenses. The manufacturing costs would be a quite a bit lower without the massive mirror-assembly and glass pentaprism and the 50% smaller sensor. Pricewise, target the Leica M9. Compared the the M9, it offers a competitive small size (it wouldn't have to be bigger than the K-5) but with all the modern working-functionality of the K-5/645d and a larger sensor (remember, sensor size is about marketing).
You heard it here first.
Totally insane if you ask me. They can't remotely stand the pressure from Canon, Nikon and Sony. They would have to develop ALL zoom lenses from scratch just to mention the most obvious nightmare. All based on a niche within a ~15% full format niche. Harakiri. They could go for training on this job over at Olympus.
The rumors about an APS-C mirrorless system make MUCH more sense to me. Imagine a tiny camera and all the Pentax expertise with pancakes. In a developing market segment. Now that would be something.
[/quote]
"Full Frame" (i.e. 135 film equivalent) size is irrelevant in this day and age. In the old days, cameras had to built around existing film formats. These days, camera designers have free reign to choose their sensor size. There will be more and more fracturing of the imaging size, the Nikon 1 is an example of this growing trend. The reasoning is simple, it allows Nikon to undercut μ4/3 (in terms of manufactuing costs) in the same way that μ4/3 did to APS-C. To the average consumer (the ones who keep Nikon in business), there is little difference between a 1 and μ4/3 camera. So, Nikon can sell at a similar price and make more profit margin, or undercut μ4/3 and take more market share. In Nikon's world they arrived at that sensor size as the optimum for their purposes. In the film days, they would have had to follow an existing film format and the only way to "cheap out" would've been on electro-mechanical features or materials.
So, there is nothing inherently special about a 135 sized digital camera for a company like Pentax. In an ideal enthusiast world, they would come out with that format camera so all the cheap bastards like myself could use all the cheap legacy Pentax lenses that we have hoarded...but we would only buy it if it was relatively cheap like a K-5 or Alpha-850 (which didn't do that well). Obviously, that situation doesn't suit Pentax very well because they don't really make money on low-profit margin low-volume full-frame bodies.
So, more likely they will have to carve out a totally different niche. It would make a lot more sense for them be a "μ645d"...a MILC with a 33x33 sensor (splits the difference between 645d and 135d) with a K-mount and a dedicated adaptor for 645d lenses. The manufacturing costs would be a quite a bit lower without the massive mirror-assembly and glass pentaprism and the 50% smaller sensor. Pricewise, target the Leica M9. Compared the the M9, it offers a competitive small size (it wouldn't have to be bigger than the K-5) but with all the modern working-functionality of the K-5/645d and a larger sensor (remember, sensor size is about marketing).
You heard it here first.