[Parallax]

The fact that a mirrorless FF camera would be different from anything else on the market ..........................
A mirrorless FF, on the other hand, would be something new and something that you often hear users of other brands requesting. Actually, I have a theory that there is a race amongst a few companies to be the first to release such a camera..

Leica already won that race.

Leica M Digital Rangefinder Camera (Black) 10770 B&H Photo Video

Leica M-E Digital Rangefinder Camera 10759 B&H Photo Video

Rice High might be right, but if so, it'll be pure coincidence rather than any real inside knowledge.

[TaoMaas]

Not making any changes or innovation that might effect backwards compatibility

Okay, so what changes are you talking about that would affect backwards compatibility if not their lens mount?

You're the one saying that Pentax builds the 'best' APSC cameras, yet you wouldn't consider buying one if you were resetting. Those statements seem fairly incongruous.

Oh, I would consider it. But if I no longer had any lenses that were native to the new FF, what incentive would I have to buy Pentax when I'd have to use and adapter, same as I would if I were to invest in a more stable company? I've seen too many Pentax 35mm and DSLRs not make a dent in the Canon/Nikon market over the last few decades to believe that there's some magic rabbit that Pentax is going to pull out of it's hat and make it happen now.

So how do you do that? With incremental iterations of 'me too' products who primary claim to fame is that you can buy lenses off eBay rather than from Pentax? Working a treat so far. Their product line is as exciting as paste (and by 'exciting' I don't mean 'comes in whacky colors'). Pentax needs a game changing, compelling product.

Pentax DID try some game-change products with the Q, the K-01, and even Ricoh's GXR. They did about as well as any other Pentax offering...or even worse, in the case of the K-01. It's not the products so much as how they're being sold, IMO.

They need a product that pro photographers would use, so all the amateurs that think equipment = results would buy in.

They've been trying that since before auto-focus days with only limited success. The product you're envisioning would have to be something that would make Canon and Nikon shooters give up serious investments in lenses, flashes, and accessories and switch. I just don't see that happening.

[eurostar]

I think you might be right. Building another "me, too" FF DSLR...even with a new mount...isn't going to cut it. Pentax has to give folks a strong reason to choose them over Nikon or Canon. The attributes Pentax already has...weather-proofing, size, price, in-camera shake reduction...aren't enough. We've seen that in the DSLR sales. In order to move the needle, they'll need to do something more.

I point to three interesting thing made by Pentax/Ricoh: the microlenses array of Ricoh GXR M module, that Luminous Landscape affirms being the best for Leica lenses, aside of Leica cameras; the brass top and bottom plates of Pentax MX-1; the superfast contrast AF of latest firmware for the Q.

To me, they could be part of a new Pentax mirrorless camera with vintage look. Maybe the LX-D many are expecting.

Surely it is easier to do a mirrorless with the size of an old reflex, because the boulge of the back monitor could be compensated by the narrower lens-mount.

[junyo]

Sorry, laid low with a miserable flu, but wanted to answer. And the cough medicine made it turn into a bit of a novella, my apologies.

And how on Earth would breaking the backwards compatibility help them in gaining market share? I'll reformulate: how on Earth would losing customers help them in gaining market share?

Let's say I'm the owner of Junyo Beverages Inc, and my primary products are JunCola and Diet JunCola. My JunCola recipe is a family tradition, first formulated by Grandpappy Junyo back in 1934, and we've been making it pretty much the same way ever since. We do okay in the local market, have a small but fiercely loyal following nationally. We have J-Col-Con every September down in Mrytle Beach, it's awesome. But my sales trend is flat, and my costs keep going up, and I have workers that depend on me for they're livelihood. So I need to make more sales.

Coolest way to launch a new product line is to repackage an existing one. So I hire a designer, who brings me back drawings of a square art deco styled bottle and an elegant label. I bottle 50k cases of JunCola Premium. No one cares. So i go to the big grocery chains and say, what kind of cost break would I have to make you to get you to up your annual order from me? And the Guy from Walmart says ' Honestly, it would have to be free.' Because, outside of a handful of his stores I sell in such low volume, no matter what the price point is, I make his logistical life harder stocking my more of product. So I'd basically have to pay him to get shelf space. Now I could do that, but in his stores, even when he carries JunCola it's still not a huge seller. Which introduces the possibility of lowering my per unit profit even lower.

So the core question is why, when their are 10 cola brands on the shelf, do only 1 out of 20 cola buyers pick JunCola/Diet JunCola? I have to fix that problem before i start making a push to get on store shelves. So I hire a market research firm, and we get beverage buyers, and we test why they're buying what they're buying. Okay, so we discard the results of people that never drink cola as a bridge too far, and focus on regular cola drinkers. The three things that bubble to the top for their favorite drinks are "not too sweet", "less fizzy", "natural ingredients". The three things that bubble to the top for JunCola are "old fashioned", "strong flavor", "nice packaging".

Hmmm...

So into the lab. We doctor the JunCola formula to be less sweet, less carbonated, and sweetened with certified organic whole cane sugar. Testing it against another group of regular cola drinker gets good reviews, with 40% saying they would try it if it were available locally. However, tested against JunColaNuts (JunCloa fan club members) the reviews are horrible; 'watered down', 'terrible', and 'Why?' are the most frequent responses. There a very good chance i could lose all of my current regular customers by changing the formula.

But the thing is... even if only half the people that said they'd give the new formula a shot actually do, and even if every single JunColaNut abandons me (even though I'm still making JunCola Classic), that still represents nearly a 400% annual increase in sales. When you're at the small end of the pool, the incentive to take these sorts of risks are much higher, simply due to the fact you've got so little to lose and so much to gain. A market leader making the same move is insane, because the amount of gain that could possibly be expected is negligible.

Now back to cameras. How does altering (I never really said breaking, but the definition of backwards compatibility on this forum has always been K-Mount, no adapter) help?

Okay, so what changes are you talking about that would affect backwards compatibility if not their lens mount?

As I said before "...everything should at least be on the table. The companies with the most freedom of movement are the companies that aren't excessively hampered by legacy support." I don't hold K-mount, P-TTL, or SAFOX is sacred. I'll get to the mount in a second.

Pentax DID try some game-change products with the Q, the K-01, and even Ricoh's GXR. They did about as well as any other Pentax offering...or even worse, in the case of the K-01. It's not the products so much as how they're being sold, IMO.

I'm sorry, but the products you mention were completely predictable disasters, so don't ask me to defend them. Yeah, it is the products. I was pretty well and roundly castigated on this forum for (correctly, btw) predicting out that they would be disasters.
Keep in mind that I argued for a concept very much like the K-01 - in 2009
And then in 2012 I predicted that Pentax had missed the window in this type of product.
Predicted the Q's failure to find a niche at the initial pricing.
Even the GXR is a good idea that's been a bungled mess of execution post merger. How is there not a K mount module for the GXR?

They've been trying that since before auto-focus days with only limited success. The product you're envisioning would have to be something that would make Canon and Nikon shooters give up serious investments in lenses, flashes, and accessories and switch. I just don't see that happening.

What nobody seemed to have grasped in the discussion of the proper Pentax MILC mount is the advantage of an adapter, even if you don't need it. It's a good thing because it significantly lowers switching cost. It's the opposite of a proprietary mount, which is great when you're looking to lock in your existing base, not so great when you need to expand it. The Sony NEX line has only been viable because, despite the lack of native glass until recently, people were able to use it with existing lenses, regardless of mount. If Sony, the worst camera company on Earth, could figure this out I'm constantly perplexed that Pentax can't.

So I I were Mr Pentax I'd be looking at:

• A FF MILC, with an an extremely modern reduced registration distance mount, that would accommadate a much large than 35mm frame (this future proofs the new mount within our lifetimes, as it would accommodate faster lenses, in body SR, and larger sensors in future
• As small as possible, fully rugged, weathersealed body
• Best in class AF
• A new mount>Pentax K adapter, with full functionality pass-through available day one
• A new line of lens - Pentax Limited Super Primes with leaf shutters so that they can sync up to 1/1000 without any flash power loss (this is also makes the camera a logical bridge to Pentax MF)
• Wishlist of video and connectivity options
• Day one professional service centers and lens libraries in major cities in key markets.

I then push variations of this body style down into APS-C, which stays on K mount, which I continue to support, but I'm giving you an incentive to upgrade.

So yeah, it's a nugget in terms of burning money. And as a product, it's probably going to bleed money. And the fanboys will howl and gnash their teeth. But when I'm done, I've changed the game. As spec'd this is a better and more complete camera system than he can buy from anyone (the individual specs aren't the point, the concept of the best spec'd camera in class is), and I've gotten there first. Today I've got Mr or Ms Canon Shooter, who has to toss his entire rig to move to Pentax. Under this paradigm, he can come in for the price of a body and maybe a Super Prime, adapting his old Canon glass. The flashes will migrate with non-TTL RF triggers, so they don't have to buy new tomorrow - but if I can keep them, they will eventually. Besides, I'm gonna sell bodies I wouldn't have sold before, and that gets my foot in the door. I'm gonna retain at least some of my K mount customers, and I'm going to sell them new lenses. And I'm more on the map for completely new purchasers looking for a 'Pro' system. And I think that, in and of itself, makes a lot of Pentax's marketing woes go away.

Of course, there zero chance of any of these happening, so whatever.

[Kunzite]

Interesting story, however it's nowhere near enough to convince me
Assuming that by changing the mount (recipe) would automatically bring you 4 times as many customers is a huge leap of faith - one I'm unwilling to make. In any case, the camera business is different than your imaginary Junyo Beverages, so I'd rather stick with the facts: you are saying that Pentax should give up on their current userbase (and the associated income), in order to start from scratch in the competitive, price-sensitive, 4 times smaller MILC market. Your "justification" is that we're all "a bunch of people sitting on 20 year old glass that they want an occasional body for". Is that right?

Indeed, there is zero chance for Pentax committing suicide in such a silly way. You are talking about a highly expensive camera, with conflicting design requirements (small, but with an unnecessarily large mount), and Pro service/lens libraries (Pentax stores?) "in major cities". You are talking about super products and investments which would generate huge losses, and that's a fatal mistake for a company - because what they need to survive is profit.

Nope, it won't happen. Pentax will simply build on what they have, no overnight world conquering plans whatsoever - just moving forward, step by step.

P.S. I hope you're feeling better. Take care!

[TaoMaas]

Let's say I'm the owner of Junyo Beverages Inc, and my primary products are JunCola and Diet JunCola. My JunCola recipe is a family tradition, first formulated by Grandpappy Junyo back in 1934, and we've been making it pretty much the same way ever since.

I'm sure it's intentional, but you do know you just laid out the scenario for what is widely regarded as the worst marketing disaster of all time, don't you? "New Coke" is the term for "how to throw away your product in 90 days or less". Perhaps Pentax should keep the Pentax name and K-mount (or some variation of it) for their DSLR products, but change the mount for their mirrorless products (while offering a very good K-mount adapter) and market them as Ricoh products. I could be wrong, but I keep thinking that Ricoh/Pentax already has the answer in-house in the GXR. Offer a K-mount module for those who want K-mount...but create an entirely new modern mount and module for moving forward in the mirrorless world.

[monochrome]

Perhaps Pentax should keep the Pentax name and K-mount (or some variation of it) for their DSLR products, but change the mount for their mirrorless products (while offering a very good K-mount adapter) and market them as Ricoh products.

I recommend you duck now. I suggested this on another thread last week and was nearly run out of the place.

Make the Ricoh MILFF offering a complete Pro system and the K-mount Pentax offering a complete enthusiast system (which is the MOST it has ever been, LX notwithstanding).

Edit: Hah Haha - MILFF

[Kunzite]

MILFF, the first mirrorless that sounds tempting

Perhaps Pentax should keep the Pentax name and K-mount (or some variation of it) for their DSLR products, but change the mount for their mirrorless products (while offering a very good K-mount adapter) and market them as Ricoh products.

Well, I have nothing against a Pentax mirrorless line after "fixing" the K-mount. I probably wouldn't buy it, but then I can't ask Pentax to make only the products I would buy.

I'm not really sure about marketing such MILCs as Ricoh, what would be the point? We're talking about mainstream products, and IMO it's not easy to (seriously) promote two brands instead of one. Maybe if they want to phase out "Pentax" for "Ricoh", which is not the case; I think it would be more effective to keep Pentax as their main brand, and Ricoh for niche products.

[TaoMaas]

I'm not really sure about marketing such MILCs as Ricoh, what would be the point? We're talking about mainstream products, and IMO it's not easy to (seriously) promote two brands instead of one.

Truth be told, Pentax really isn't marketing either brand, although the Pentax name comes with a built-in brand identity. I believe Pentax's brand identity is "great lenses...solid, sensible, low cost camera bodies". Keep doing what you've always done and it will sell in about the same numbers as it is now because...well, because Pentax hasn't really marketed themselves over the last 5+ years or so. They're just feeding on their existing customer base, not growing it significantly. Ricoh doesn't really have much of a brand identity beyond "value" so if we're going to reinvent a brand, Ricoh makes more sense. I think the mirrorless market is still very much up in the air so the Ricoh brand is as good as any to promote. Having multiple brands has worked well for Honda/Acura, Nissan/Infinity, and Toyota/Lexus/Scion....and before that Chevy/Buick/Oldsmobile/Pontiac and Ford/Lincoln/Mercury. The concept isn't new. Only applying it to cameras is, unless you want to count Yashica/Contax.

[Kunzite]

There are several distinct ideas in your post, and I'd rather discuss them distinctly

- that Pentax should do things differently (better), in order to have different (better) results.
It's pretty obvious, isn't it? However, unless using Ricoh as a MILC brand is absolutely the only change they could possibly make, it's not an argument.
Things are already moving in a different direction, than under Hoya.
- that Ricoh makes more sense, if "we're going to reinvent a brand".
The question is, why should they reinvent a brand?
- that Ricoh brand is as good as any to promote
Nope; for example promoting Canon or Nikon would be a bad idea Starting a third brand, when they already have Pentax and Ricoh, probably would not make sense (unless they would be able to come up with a really powerful brand, which I doubt).
- that having multiple brands have worked well for ...
And for Ricoh; just take a look at their brand portfolio.
But this doesn't mean they should do Ricoh MILCs.

I will repeat my counter-argument, that it's better to promote and grow one brand than two, and that Pentax is in a better position for that.

[TaoMaas]

I will repeat my counter-argument, that it's better to promote and grow one brand than two, and that Pentax is in a better position for that.

You might be right. It's a question of, "Is it easier to take a 'serious amateur' brand and elevate it...or to start with a relatively clean slate and create something from scratch?" I suppose it depends upon how strong that base branding is. And in Pentax's case these days, the answer is, "Not very". Maybe that's Pentax's marketing strategy. To lay low for 5-10 years, let the public's perception die down, then re-emerge as an up-scale alternative. Who knows?

[monochrome]

Kunzite: We cannot possibly know what is better. We don't have all the information. What Ricoh needs to spend some money on - for a long time and consistently - is marketing (in all its many iterations) at least one of if not both of their brands.

Making Ricoh the intellectual, technologically cutting-edge, experimental, first-mover, early-adopter brand is an intriguing idea. Making Pentax a solid, enthusiast or semi-pro brand is something they've fitfully tried for decades. Nothing about that says Pentax couldn't accept technology transfer from Ricoh in later models.

Whether there could be enough cash flow to make the combined brands a professional system, or to allow B&M chains to stock both brands under one dealer agreement is something I imagine PRI is considering now.

I am convinced things are coming - but I might not think they are as good as others do.

[TaoMaas]

What Ricoh needs to spend some money on - for a long time and consistently - is marketing (in all its many iterations) at least one of if not both of their brands.

I think you're right. Pentax's products are not really below many of the offerings out there, but their marketing is vastly sub-par. There's a lot of strong points in Pentax's product line that could be promoted.

[Kunzite]

You might be right. It's a question of, "Is it easier to take a 'serious amateur' brand and elevate it...or to start with a relatively clean slate and create something from scratch?" I suppose it depends upon how strong that base branding is. And in Pentax's case these days, the answer is, "Not very". Maybe that's Pentax's marketing strategy. To lay low for 5-10 years, let the public's perception die down, then re-emerge as an up-scale alternative. Who knows?

Laying low only means they would have to start from an even lower level, me thinks. Whatever their plan is, I'd say they will start it as soon as possible (probably it's already started).

Kunzite: We cannot possibly know what is better. We don't have all the information. What Ricoh needs to spend some money on - for a long time and consistently - is marketing (in all its many iterations) at least one of if not both of their brands.

Making Ricoh the intellectual, technologically cutting-edge, experimental, first-mover, early-adopter brand is an intriguing idea. Making Pentax a solid, enthusiast or semi-pro brand is something they've fitfully tried for decades. Nothing about that says Pentax couldn't accept technology transfer from Ricoh in later models.

Whether there could be enough cash flow to make the combined brands a professional system, or to allow B&M chains to stock both brands under one dealer agreement is something I imagine PRI is considering now.

I am convinced things are coming - but I might not think they are as good as others do.

Indeed, we can make some informed guesses but we don't actually know. At least, though, we know Pentax is the main brand.

I'm not very fond of intriguing ideas, it sounds too much like the so-called old Chinese curse - "may you live in interesting times". I'd rather say they have to spend money in an effective manner, and raising Ricoh as a cutting edge brand and Pentax as an enthusiast one, together with making clear the connection between the two, could be an effort not worth the results.