Ignore this thread if FF bores you.

Started Dec 10, 2010 | Discussions thread
Flat view
Moving Comfort Forum Member • Posts: 84
Ignore this thread if FF bores you.

paulkienitz wrote:

On the other hand, EVIL cameras might end up getting so cheap that the larger formats will remain just as marginalized in terms of percentage of overall sales.

So I think in the semi-pro and pro price brackets, FF will tend to push out APS DSLRs, especially as the mounts used by APS DSLRs were never designed for them, and are proportioned to work best with FF. And optical viewfinders work a lot better with FF too. Counterbalancing that, really cheap cameras will do a lot that used to require semi-pro gear.

John_A_G wrote:

This is the way of it. I agree the pro market will push to full frame. Nikon proved with the D3s that a full frame sensor could work in a PJ / Sports solution. So it's no longer just for studio/landscape cameras. The nikon / canon / sony pro lenses are sized for full frame so there's no added cost for them to stay that course. BUT, it's the second paragraph above that's also important - the full frame market is going to stay niche because for the vast majority of people, it's about quality that's "good enough" AND it's a society of convenience. DSLRs are toys to so many people. But they get tired of the big/heavy cameras/lenses and stop using them. They like the quick response they get and IQ but hate the size. They're going to gravitate towards something that gets them back to a comfortable size.

This is why the 'small bodied' FF offering was suggested. But even a D700-sized FF body is not that much bigger than a K20D, for example, and it doesn't necessarily have to be wedded to a huge lens.

A small-bodied, nicely priced FF body could potentially expand the FF market, much like the 645D is expected to do in MF.

So, as a company, what market makes the most sense for Pentax to go after - the pros (a market controlled 99% by Canon / Nikon) which represent 1% (pulling this number out of the air) or semi-pro (another 5%?) or go after a good chunk of the 94% of other photographers out there?

Hoya has it capability of going for the upper-end enthusiast (D700 & 5DmII buyer) as well as the aps-c market. (yes, they do.)

Again, you also conveniently keep forgetting that Pentax hasn't invested any money in modern full frame lenses

True. While most of the new lenses they've released are actualy FF capable (see Falk's thread on pentaxforums,) Hoya would need to commit to at least 3 new FF lenses as part of this. Ned himself has hinted that this is the case.

For example Canon has 31 L lenses in it's lineup plus a handful of other quality non-L lenses (50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.0 etc) - zooms and primes pro quality optics from ultra wide to 800mm. And you think it's a smart business decision for Pentax to try to enter that market and try to steal market share?


The business world is full of examples of companies that didn't get the memo that they weren't supposed to compete. Hoya is huge, they have resources, they can stomach a multi-year ROI timeframe.

Canon itself was once a little newbie who shouldn't have been able to compete with Nikon.

We're not talking about people that want a quality $200 lens - we're talking now about people that want the best - period. So, pentax should invest in 400mm 2.8, 600mm f4 style lenses?

Maybe start with a 35 f/2, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8, then a long telephoto, yes.

... Remember, tiny market of pros

Most D700 & 5D buyers are not pros.

... And you've got to re-design the focus system. There's a great write-up by a dual system user - K5 is much imprroved but still not as good as D700 much less the D3s.

Exactly! This is what were talking about. The goodies that come in the body with a FF sensor are often the reason people buy those bodies. The sci-fi like AF is probably the main reason I bought the D700, format advantages secondary.

Think that's cheap and easy to do?

Of course not.

..If so, Pentax and Oly would have done it by now.

Do you realize what it entailed for Pentax to jump in to MF? It's a hard sell to do both within 5 years, I'll give you that. Regarding Oly - I'd look more to Sony for indication of how to do or not do FF - the Minolta acquisition by Sony fits the Hoya/Pentax pattern better. There would be some good/bad lessons there for us.

Then, of course, you also have to invest in Professional Services.


... And you have to have all this stuff BEFORE you're going to get sports/PJ users (a vast majority of the market buying pro cameras) to switch over.

Getting some enthusiasts on board is step one. Believe me - a smallest-in-tier WS FF offering is going to inspire a lot of gear lust among those folks.

AND -you need to re-establish a presence in brick and mortar.

Yes!! But I think they should do that now, regardless of what they do with FF. Pentax ergonomics and feel is a step above Nikon & Canon, IMO - they're throwing out that advantage by keeping demo models out of people's hands.

There are all sorts of business costs associated with that type of decision - enormous costs - all for a very tiny market. Or, a company can go after the 94% of the market that does not require those costs. Which makes more sense?

There is probably absolutely no real reason Hoya can't do both, especially because they are not completely distinct efforts. R&D and manufacturing resources can be shared between tiers.

One of my main points is that you cant say you know FF is undo-able for Hoya just because they haven't done it yet. You're speculating on the actual cost, the ROI potential, etc. I'm saying there are other reasons why a company might not want to move on something besides "it's never going to work."

(this thread is a continuation of:
---> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&thread=37104521 )


Flat view
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow