[Serkevan]

I haven't talked about you, I've talked about the photographic capabilities of a camera. You can always say that you don't need a car because you just use a bicycle to go buy bread down at the nearest baker the street, the argument will work all the time.

No, my point is that while there are capabilities a K-1 does not have, they are only relevant when the user needs them.

I can also say a Z9 is more capable and a better camera overall than the K-1, but that's a vacuous statement. In the end it's a question of how much money you're willing to spend, and seeing as how, euro for euro, the K-1 is better for my uses than the K-3iii or the D500, for me it's the right choice. Simple as that.

---------- Post added 07-23-22 at 05:31 AM ----------

Absolutely valid. If I hadn't developed a taste for birding even a K-70 checks most boxes for me.

Where the K1 shines brightest is in landscapes and panos, love having it along on my hikes with a 15-30 on it, altho it performs pretty nicely in studio portraits too with both the DFA50 and 85. It's generally my preferred camera now when I travel to model calls. Lack of "eye focus" is no issue whatsoever, and never has been on any of my Pentax DSLR's. I chalk it up more to technique (I had a professional wedding and event photog and former college photography professor as a mentor early on), but whatever it is my spot focusing success has generally matched up very well with the best of the mirrorless group also there. Posing and creative lighting are what I struggle with more, and they haven't made a camera yet that assists with that.

Yeah, I hike quite often and taking in the views and nature comes first - so being able to take a high quality shot in one moment with the ridiculous IQ of the K-1 is very welcome. And I don't know... It focuses fast enough to grab a candid of a friend here and there.

Now, obviously, if they offered me the same camera but with more buffer/better AF so I have to work a bit less for it/better LCD... well, I wouldn't say no... But I also wouldn't drop 3K for what, in my case, would be relatively minor quality of life improvement. Now a bigger, brighter finder? Even better Astrotracer with more movement range/better precision? In-camera focus stacks of pixel-shift images? Now we'd be talking.

[reh321]

That's my point. I'm asking what we (the consumer) consider to being genuine mirrorless products. Do we simply apply the concept of 'no mirror' in which case that includes heaps of imaging devices that we don't typically associate the term mirrorless with. Or does it need to have ICL to being 'mirrorless'? So the X100V is no longer a mirrorless camera but the XT4 is (despite both having the same tech/sensor/AF performance etc)?

I think when MILC was becoming a thing, Canikony weren't really going to release K-01 and Q type cameras as serious contenders to replace their DSLR division. I think the following criteria was critical to this becoming a serious contender and actually maps out the main features that we come today to consider to being 'mirrorless' today;

1) No mirror

2) Has an eyepiece viewer of some description (more than something than a separate addon purchase that sits in a hotshoe to guide composition), typically this has become an EVF to replace the OVF or a hybrid EVF/OVF.

3) Supports AF.C

4) Has interchangeable lenses

Seeing as the K-01 and Q don't feature item 2 or 3 I really don't consider them serious attempts by Pentax to 'get into' the mirrorless market. Performance wise they have more in common with a DSLR in Live View mode with no option of toggling into OVF mode (and gaining those benefits).

When Pentax attempts a camera that ticks all 4 points then I think that is fairer to say that Pentax have genuinely attempted at breaking into the mirrorless market, it's very understandable that a camera not supporting item 2 and 3 would fail. Articles that say Pentax tried mirrorless and failed is a bit misleading imo.

The Pentax K-01 was basically a typical MILC for its time, but it was also a typical Pentax effort, since Pentax was unwilling to leave the K-mount behind. Neither the predecessor of the Sony A-60000 {I forget its name} nor the Canon “EOS-M” had an EVF either, and none of them succeeded. Your four points have no meaning; “MILC” has always meant “has no mirror but does have interchangeable lenses”; it has never said anything about a viewfinder, even though people like me have insisted on one. There were only two differences 1. The other two introduced new mounts, and 2. Sony and Canon kept at it. Pentax’s devotion to the K-mount should be admired, and their decision not not continue may have been a business decision. “Pentax tried mirrorless and failed” is completely truthful, as is the statement “Pentax didn’t have the resources to continue”. We should be glad that they didn’t follow the Olympus path of driving themselves into the hands of an equity firm. The “Q” was as serious an attempt as the “GR”, which has also never had an EVF but succeeded immensely anyway.

[BruceBanner]

Mm, I get a feeling that we have yet another case of "my needs are everyone's needs".

The D500 is a terrible, *terrible* camera for my uses. I'd never buy it; no large prints, no pixel shift for amazing macro. Even larger than the K-1 (Because you aren't supposed to use it below 200mm lol). Throw in another 500 bucks if you want astrotracer (and lug the tracking mount, which is a nonstarter). No Limiteds (or primes for that matter - the Nikon APS-C lineup is as sad as Canon's).

I've ran the buffer *twice* in my K-1, and I had it for almost 3 years now. For some of us, the lower-level AF is a non-issue.

I recall owning my K-1 for a good 18 months also before I even knew what the word 'buffer' meant. Once I started working with the camera for event work, concert/live music and weddings you start to understand what buffer is and why it is really important. Your point is utterly valid, for most of my work with my K-1 (now that I have retired that platform for slower paced work) it's not an issue, but we are talking about cameras here in a professional and competitive sense across a wide range of genres. The good thing about a camera with a good buffer is if you don't need it then no worries, but if you do and it delivers then that's great. It's a bit like Pentax having pixelshift and astrotracer, maybe not everyone needs it but its good to have. I recall meeting a fellow wedding tog back in the day who shot canon, he quizzed me on my K-1 as he was kinda perplexed that I had it, but when he realised the camera had things like focus peaking, astro, pixelshift... he was impressed, his canon had none of these things (and he dual used his system for landscape as well as weddings). But at the end of the day his bread and butter job was weddings and the AF and performance of the Canon system was far more sensible than using a K-1.

I find this whole discussion a bit odd. Let's say a few things about this situation.

1. Pentax would be the at least the eighth company to release an MILC. I count Fuji, Sigma, Panasonic, Olympus, Canon, Nikon, and Sony in the market. I suppose you could throw Leica in there and I am not sure who else. Figuring out how to stand out from the other brands would be a huge challenge that seems likely insurmountable to me. It is easier to stand out in the SLR market since most companies are abandoning it. It feels like how the medium format market used to be when many of the cameras had rudimentary specs at best.

2. Launching a new mount would require a level of investment that Ricoh doesn't seem willing to commit to. Pentax is safe because they don't spend much money, they also are slow to release new cameras because of the low level of investment.

3. People do not buy new Pentax cameras because of tech. This isn't to say that Pentax cameras are incapable or don't stand up to the competition, but they have a name for cameras with solid builds, good ergonomics, and photographer friendly menus. They also have a very nice lens up (despite other comments in this thread) and their high end lenses are quite sharp and contrasty. Lenses like the DFA *50 and 85 and the DFA 21 limited show they still have the capability to design lenses that stand out from the competition.

4. Pentax does not need a high level of market share in order to survive. Unlike Canon, Nikon, and Sony who have camera lines on camera lines, Pentax can survive selling 100,000 cameras a year. With this low bar, they may survive if the market continues to tank, whereas there may need to be some (more) blood letting at companies like Nikon and Sony. Fuji for a long time has been supported by their instant film business and if that ever went away, they might find their digital business to be more shaky.

I do think it's amusing that people think that Nikon and Canon went mirrorless because it was better for their photographers. Sure, there were small benefits for some photographers, but the big thing is that they were able to resell lenses and camera bodies to people who weren't really in the market for a new camera body or lenses. It seems to have worked for Canon. For whatever reason, Nikonians have been a little slower moving over. Maybe they are more traditional, but the latest numbers I saw showed that Nikon still sells nearly as many new SLRs as MILCs. In 2020 there were 2.4 million SLRs sold and 3 million MILCs by Nikon (rounding up). Considering there were no new SLRs released and a bunch of MILCs, those numbers are surprisingly close.

Oh, well the sun will rise again, even if the worst case scenarios people can think of truly come to pass...

1. At one time the camera market were film only, then came digital and one by one they adopted it. I don't think it matters if Pentax do MILC last or first. At one time we all chose Pentax as a DSLR over all the other manufacturers DSLR's. Pentax isn't defined by the mirror or OVF experience, there was a time that every other brand had those things too. I think we're forgetting this and all of a sudden think of Pentax as being Mr OVF and the rest Mr EVFs. I like to think that if Pentax made a MILC camera/system that we'd still like to choose Pentax as our MILC of choice because its a Pentax camera.

2. Pentax are not safe. Cessation of mass production and moving to workshop model of production along with online only sales should be alarm bells going off that they are far from safe. The thread they've been hanging on has never been thinner.

3. Sure people buy Pentax for tech. I know of many who bought Pentax at a time when no other competitor was offering pixelshift, focus peaking, astrotracer, rugged weather sealing, IQ and impressive processing/fab RAW files.
Absolutely Pentax make impressive lenses (that's not under dispute here at all).

4. The reasons camera companies went MILC was about fulfilling the tech benefits that MILC offers. You're NEVER going to have a DSLR with hybrid video capability like what MILC systems have. You're not going to get AF support with DSLR's like you do with MILCs (which seems to be important, especially for newcomers to the field). You're not going to get exposure and WB previews via the OVF like you do with EVFs (again something newcomers seem to appreciate, if the viewfinder is black... something is wrong etc). The camera companies were aware of the opportunities for growth and attracting fresh blood to their systems. MILC offered additional in camera specifications and features to help keep them relevant and competitive in the market, they realised staying with the mirror held them back, and this is why things are the way they are now with most moving to MILC.

I do not shoot fast-moving subjects and I usually shoot on the go, without setting a tripod for stitching, so... No.

Besides, the K-3iii and D500 are lousy candidates for the FA43, Irix 11 and FA77. Lenses>body, almost always.

That we can agree on. It sounds like you have the right camera for you and that's great. Although I have added Fuji to my toolbag my 645D and K-1 is going nowhere, they excel in ways Fuji wished they could... there really is no perfect camera, get the glass you like and accept the body to which it is attached to and work around the issues as best you can.

Absolutely valid. If I hadn't developed a taste for birding even a K-70 checks most boxes for me.

Where the K1 shines brightest is in landscapes and panos, love having it along on my hikes with a 15-30 on it, altho it performs pretty nicely in studio portraits too with both the DFA50 and 85. It's generally my preferred camera now when I travel to model calls. Lack of "eye focus" is no issue whatsoever, and never has been on any of my Pentax DSLR's. I chalk it up more to technique (I had a professional wedding and event photog and former college photography professor as a mentor early on), but whatever it is my spot focusing success has generally matched up very well with the best of the mirrorless group also there. Posing and creative lighting are what I struggle with more, and they haven't made a camera yet that assists with that.

That part I think has come into question. My experience of Fuji and the EVF coupled with the WB and Exposure live preview (WYSIWYG), in conjunction with the in camera settings to tweak can actually be incredibly powerful tools to 'see creative lighting' where the eye or OVF might miss or not necessarily pick up on. If you choose a contrasty profile for example and look at the world through that medium then you start to see compositions and opportunities that you might miss with the eye or OVF. It's a little like Thomas Heaton's recent experience with his IR converted XT3, he's enjoying seeing the landscape world he knows all too well in a 'new light'. I think this EVF preview is what attracts a lot of newcomers as well, seeing a potential 'shot' with an OVF can be hard for some.

FWIW the ED (Eye Detection) thing is a bit overrated in MILC world and it depends on the shoot. I agree that in studio and shooting at something like f4 or f8, it feels redundant a little, especially if you have a patient model who can wait as you take a second or third shot. Where ED really helps is faster paced portrait work, like weddings and such, moments that are fleeting, or perhaps trickier subjects like kids where focus>recompose>(refocus if super thing DoF) is not possible. It's again just a tool that can be useful, nice to have on standby if needed.

Most of the camera market will go to mirrorless e.g 90%, but some of the market will remains for DSLR e.g 10%. Ricoh decided to grab 100% of the DSLR market, so they'll have 10% market share ultimately if Ricoh invest, Pentax could rise from 2% market share to about 10%. But if Ricoh don't invest, Pentax will stay at the same level of lose more customers. Like Schwarzenegger said, when you do something you have to do it fully. If you are DSLR only company, go for it, invest. Not knowing what to do , hesitating, I go there I don't go there, I study the market, after 6 year of the Pentax K1 I hesitate I'm not sure if I should make a new camera or not, etc... that won't work. Ricoh must act in line with the DSLR only decision, hire more engineers, design new cameras, release more lenses, advertise and move forward. Ricoh, you have all that Pentax DSLR market in front of you, no competition, Canon and Nikon give that market to you Pentax (they are nice), what are you waiting for? Basically, what Nikon are saying with the Mikkei article is "Pentax , we give you our DSLR market, please take care of it", I hope Ricoh understands the message.

---------- Post added 23-07-22 at 14:06 ----------


I think you need to experience some photographic situations in order to come the my conclusion. I agree that many beginners don't see the points I highlighted, simply because they don't have the experience. It's a bit like me when I didn't understand why Pentax flash support was an issue until I started to use flashes.

---------- Post added 23-07-22 at 14:09 ----------


I'm usually satisfied with eye focus on my portrait pictures, and I didn't see the point of eye AF, until recently when I compared eye focus of portrait pictures taken with my K1 and Sony camera, I realized what I though was in focus from my K1 wasn't very much in focus, always slightly off. For portrait photography, having eye AF is generally an advantage over DSLR.

Hear hear! 100% agree with everything you say here.

[Rondec]

The point is not that tech is unimportant, but that it is possible to craft cameras where the tech is "good enough" but the shooting experience is superlative. You could argue that Apple as done this sort of thing. People tell me all of the time that the Android phones are more powerful and capable, but Apple has made their phones adequately fast, but the user experience for non-techie people is simply better.

Most people do not need video on their ILC. I know a bunch of photographers and none of them shoots more than the occasional clip with their ILC -- whether they are mirrorless or not. You vlog and so your perspective is a bit different. Very few people need a faster frame rate than is offered with a K-3 III or D500. The difference in auto focus is overstated as well. In the field a D500 will match any current MILC camera with regard to number of frames captured that are sharp. The difference will actually come down to the lens used and not the camera at all.

It isn't that I think that mirrorless cameras are bad cameras -- far from it. I just think what they bring to the table is not what the majority of photographers are looking for. Photographers have been asking for more dynamic range, better shooting experience and the brands have said, "We won't give you that, but how about more megapixels, higher frame rate, and 8K video?" Thanks, but no thanks...

(The eye auto focus with the K-3 III through the OVF actually works quite well. I'm looking forward to Pentax bringing that along to the K-1 III.)

[JPT]

Cessation of mass production and moving to workshop model of production along with online only sales should be alarm bells going off that they are far from safe.

Can you explain what exactly has changed about the way they produce cameras? I mean they still have all cameras in stock and they still have their same factory in the Philippines. So what is the change except for the fact that they are now starting to produce some specialized models via crowdfunding?

Also, what is wrong with starting brand-specific stores on online shopping platforms? This makes a lot of sense given how important online sales are now. If you are concerned about Pentax being dropped by physical retailers in Japan, can you say which specific stores you are concerned about? I say this because I find that there are still plenty of stores that stock Pentax in Japan - it's not online only at all.

[AggieDad]

Point really is, for a DSLR released in 2021 we'd want the best AF performance (of any DSLR), but the fact remains there are still major problems with Pentax AF and subsequent earlier DSLR cameras from other manufacturers run rings around it. No one at the Olympics is using Pentax, and no one ever will, and that is all the proof anyone really needs for Pentax to being seen as a professional camera capable with reliable AF, fps, buffer etc.

Back in November of 2021 I wrote something similar about Pentax:

"I'd expect them to match or exceed every feature of the top Nikon and Canon (and every other manufacturers') models. When you are manufacturing the last of the DSLRs and positioning yourself to be the only maker of DSLRs – to be the niche provider – it seems to me that matching or exceeding every spec of every existing camera is a must.

The K-3-3 did not check all the boxes. And until every box is checked, there is little (no?) reason for any but the brand faithful to buy Pentax.

Here is the last company to be offering a newly-designed DSLR at a premium price, and they don't completely surpass what is already on the market. Even the Pentax Forums review rated the camera at less than 9 (8.8). Other reviewers have also been less than astonished by the K-3-3. Unfortunately, that's not how it should have been. It took a while for this camera to come to market. Every reaction from every review should have been "Wow!"

The company has already made the decision to not enter the mirrorless market, saying they are DSLR camera makers. So they need to make the absolute best DSLR cameras that can be made. Refine the K-3-3 and finish checking the boxes. Bring out a K-1-3 and make sure it is better than anything comparable right from the start. Become the niche company that is the "go-to" for anyone wanting a DSLR.

Earlier in this thread, when I wrote that I could not, in good conscious, recommend Pentax to someone new to photography, the initial responses were, as expected, very defensive. It's understandable. Then a few folks responded with their concerns about Pentax and its offerings and its future. Yes, there is a lot to like about Pentax cameras – that's why we own them – but I do not feel there is enough to keep them viable in the future.

Objectively, Pentax is the odd man out. But that is okay if they are special. Right now, I just don't think they are special enough.

[Rondec]

Just thinking about the "mirrorless revolution," it feels to me like a car company decided to revolutionize the car market by releasing cars that can drive 250 mph, that have car doors that can open 50 percent faster than their nearest rival, and have radar that allows for tracking of local wildlife near the road. These all could be very real improvements over existing automobiles on the market and still they might not see huge sales.

I see Pentax as an outlier. They definitely could improve the K-1 II and K-70 camera bodies -- it has been a while since either of those cameras received a real update. It wouldn't be too hard with the K-1 to simply add the K-3 III firmware, choose a high quality Sony sensor and use that as a jumping off point.

All of that said, I believe that Pentax understands something that other brands fail to see. We are going back to the 1970s. In the 1970s and even the 1980s there was little point in updating your camera on a regular basis. Buying a new camera every 7 to 10 years was probably the norm. We aren't going to be getting to that place, but most people are going to go at least 5 years between camera purchases -- they will use their phones more than their cameras and they simply will not need the upgrades that moving from a Sony A9 to a Sony A9 II offers.

[ZombieArmy]

No. I see Pentax (digital DSLR bodies) being like the cassette, slowly becoming an obsolete technology.

Might wanna check the price on decent cassette gear these days. Or even cassettes themselves.

[BruceBanner]

The point is not that tech is unimportant, but that it is possible to craft cameras where the tech is "good enough" but the shooting experience is superlative. You could argue that Apple as done this sort of thing. People tell me all of the time that the Android phones are more powerful and capable, but Apple has made their phones adequately fast, but the user experience for non-techie people is simply better.

Most people do not need video on their ILC. I know a bunch of photographers and none of them shoots more than the occasional clip with their ILC -- whether they are mirrorless or not. You vlog and so your perspective is a bit different. Very few people need a faster frame rate than is offered with a K-3 III or D500. The difference in auto focus is overstated as well. In the field a D500 will match any current MILC camera with regard to number of frames captured that are sharp. The difference will actually come down to the lens used and not the camera at all.

It isn't that I think that mirrorless cameras are bad cameras -- far from it. I just think what they bring to the table is not what the majority of photographers are looking for. Photographers have been asking for more dynamic range, better shooting experience and the brands have said, "We won't give you that, but how about more megapixels, higher frame rate, and 8K video?" Thanks, but no thanks...

I think actually no, you're mistaken. Please don't box yourself into what you have personally seen as being what the masses want. My camera club doesn't have a single person caring about video either, but then they are also mainly 65+ retired folk who are not professional shooters (it's a social club at heart). They're not people using a camera to make a living, real estate for example where video and drones are as much part of the industry now as stills are of the home. Companies looking for new headshots for their staff, often now are asking 'do you do video as well, small reels for our site etc?'. Weddings... how many couples ask 'do you do video as well'? Local gyms, they want more than instagram pics, they want a reel! It's the market demand that drives industry and things are changing faster than you might think. Even 3yrs ago I was never seeing real estate videos for homes, how that's all I see. I have heard that 85% of people shopping for cameras now care about video capability, dunno how true that is but I wouldn't be surprised. Pentax is a niche, we're a niche and we need to be mindful of that, the circles of people we keep close probably share similar views but that can mean we're simply 'out of touch'.

What photographers wanted seems to be what they got. They wanted a better shooting experience and they got it, it's called more advanced AF. The ability for the camera to choose the birds eye for focus for them instead of single AF point, focus>recompose>damn it's moved... there goes my shot... etc. It's called Face/Eye Detection so that when a model comes walking towards you flicking their hair to and fro and you want to shoot f1.4 with an 85mm and have only her face/eye in focus and shoot 15fps so you can choose the best expression the model has out of the series of images... you can.
How about the fact that now when you look down the eye piece you see WB preview and exposure preview, you see what the shot is going to be like before you hit the shutter, get a live histogram to help you even further, you're done with chimping because you know what it's going to be like and you can trust teh AF to be on point because goodbye front/back focusing issues.
Look... the list is endless, I could write all day about it but I shouldn't have to. You just have to admit that your own photographic desires are niche and not actually what people care about. If the OVF was king and EVF was horrible, an absolute deal breaker no matter how much they improved it, things wouldn't be like they are now. We need to accept the reality that the improvements and shooting experience that came with MILC mattered to others, mattered the most! just perhaps not us.

I still want an affordable 67 digital sensor, I can leave the AF out if that helps... I'll settle for a genuine 645 digital sensor and not a baby one... make it affordable... but where is it?

[jersey]

along with online only sales should be alarm bells going off that they are far from safe. The thread they've been hanging on has never been thinner.

Maybe someone will correct me but if my memory works well Pentax moved away from presence on shops, but they will be opening booths at shopping centers and so on for "direct interaction with customer". So no longer single Pentax among Sony and Canon cameras, just single brand booths where you can check, try and order Pentax (and probably Ricoh) cameras?

-------

Also I think Pentax is not aiming for hard working pros Even their last promotional videos were about how Pentax supplements MILC where MILC is perfect work body, while Pentax is good for off work, relaxing photography or when you want to get creativ and relaxed with photographing.

[Pål Jensen]

I wonder what percentage of cameras that are bought in shops? 5%?

[Wheatfield]

Meanwhile, out of the 10 or so people I know who bought a camera in the last couple years, 9 bought entry level.

And the 10th as well, he just upgraded to FF later. I do not know a single person who starts off a hobby - any hobby - with high-end gear straight out of the box. The cell phone is a terrible analogy, because it has two, maybe 3 focal lengths, of which at most one is of half-decent quality, which is highly limiting when someone wants to improve.

That explains why every manufacturer is abandoning the entry level market. The numbers just aren't there any more to support making entry level gear.

[ZombieArmy]

{
I was driving {in snow} one year when I saw a locomotive that I had never seen before {and have never seen since}.
Since I was 'running errands' it turned out I had no camera with me - not even my "Q" ..... other than the one in my smart phone,
so I took this photo. Certainly, I could have taken a better photo with a K-1 {if I had one, and I had it with me}, but I took the best photo I could with the camera I did have with me.
It even looks OK on my computer screen - certainly better than the photo I would have taken with the imaginary camera I didn't have with me.

On another occasion, I was returning to my car after having taught {I taught several classes at a local women's college}, when I saw a maintenance man, seemingly photographing my car with his smart phone. He explained that he was photographing the hawk in a tree over my car, so I grabbed my phone and took a photo also. After that, I made a practice of taking my "Q" with me to class, but I never again saw a hawk. Would a K-1 have been better than my "Q" - of course - but dragging it to class would have been a bother - and I had neither of them with me at the time, and I do use photos to tell the story of my life ..... " photograph today before tomorrow comes and everything is different".

The point wasn't whether cameras can take photos conveniently, the question was whether they're good enough compared to a dedicated system for someone who would are actively into photography. Sure my phone is good enough for documenting something or taking personal photos, but they've been good enough at that for over a decade. When I see something that would have been a nice photo with my camera but I don't have it with me I don't just turn to my phone every time because I don't need to waste my energy on a photo I won't like. Sometimes I'd prefer just to be in the moment and not take a photo at all.

So I will reiterate. Phones are not close to dedicated cameras at all. We can change the goal posts all we want and say that people don't care about the quality differences but we all know attitudes change over time so who knows what people will think in 5, 10, 15 years. The fact of the matter is you just can't take certain photos with a phone. Period.

[biz-engineer]

2. Pentax are not safe. Cessation of mass production and moving to workshop model of production along with online only sales should be alarm bells going off that they are far from safe. The thread they've been hanging on has never been thinner.

Everything is thin at Ricoh Imaging, it's been thin for 20 years, and it's a completely deliberate choice, Pentax has never been leading anything for 20 years except for adding features that cost nothing but still are valuable for customers. Ricoh Imaging have 5 product lines in catalog (Theta, GR, Pentax APS, Pentax FF, Pentax 645), while leading camera brands have 1 or 2 formats and even a single camera body design at a given point in time (Nikon, Sony). Nikon make APS and FF MILC, drop DSLR, that's 2 product lines, and they have 4 cameras Z6,Z7,Z6II, Z7II with the same body design (saving on R&D), what's configured is the sensor and the mother board, maybe with more or less buffer. Sony have a similar approach , no full body redesigns for years, they reused the same body , tweaked (larger grip), and that was mostly it. Pentax really don't follow those routes because they aren't going after market share. Instead, Ricoh diversified because they are going after selling more to the same customers (I don't know how well that works, but marketing strategy wise it's what they are doing), multiples sources of cash. Ricoh diversification with 3% market share each product line is what kept them alive because with 5 product lines at 3% acts like grab enough cash flow as if they had 15% market share in a single product line (15% market share = ~ Fuji). The downside of diversification when competitors are focused is that you lose market share because you can't be competitive in any of your product lines.

Now if you look at Ricoh diversified product lines, it's not stupid, it's done on purpose:
-> K mount apsc and ff: customers who have glass can't easily switch over so for the K line you can drag R&D for as long as you don't see an exodus toward other brands.
-> Theta: well, it's a niche product, not so many competitors out there, move it to B2B and you have zero competitor in that segment
-> GRIIi: one of the smallest apsc camera, if not the smaller, out there, no much competitor for the concept at least.
-> 645: well, that one rely of owners of old glass, you can keep 645z on the shelves , whoever purchase a 645z these days, that's pure cash in the pocket.

That's how Ricoh Imaging make money, with very little market share, 5 product lines, release one product once in a while to keep customer hope alive and make money. Of course if you are a customer and compare Pentax with others, you may find Pentax dragging feet, but you have all that Pentax glass invested with your pocket money over many years, you are frustrated but you don't switch. In fact the whole approach to making money with Pentax has been to "drag feet" on purpose (I was Pentax owner before you, I think). Their idea (of Pentax since Hoya, and now Ricoh) is the same as martial arts (Aikido). In martial arts you capture the energy from the attack and turn it to your advantage, you never expend energy to do an attack. Pentax did the same, Pentax never sold enough camera and lenses to keep camera retailers alive; Canon and Nikon spent all the efforts and dollars to keep camera shops alive, and Pentax used the retailers to sell their cameras while offering nothing to retailers (such as retailer must buy the Pentax camera to have it on sale, while CanikonSonyFuji give it for free to the retailer). Now, with MILC vs DSLR, Pentax decides to let others spent the big $$$ in R&D, and reuse sensors from Sony after the R&D is paid off by the leading brands. It's like if you go to a picnic eating in the fresh grass under a tree because it's hot summer, you have 5 friends , 4 friends each bring food or drink to the table, and one of them (Pentax) eat his lunch out of what others left on the table. All this has been a choice for Pentax (the martial arts approach) which allowed Pentax to make money, with a small market share and small R&D budgets.

---------- Post added 23-07-22 at 17:48 ----------

I wonder what percentage of cameras that are bought in shops? 5%?

Depends on the shop. At my shop, if I tell them that I found a lower price online, they check the price and give me the same price plus some goodies like a free memory card or a camera cleaning kit, plus the shop offer me to buy back lenses or cameras I want to sell. No only that, but if I buy a camera or lens at the camera shop and it doesn't work when I try it at home, I can go back to the shop (5 miles down the road) and get it exchanged immediately. So unless the shop doesn't sell what I want to buy, I always buy at the shop.

[brofkand]

I wonder what percentage of cameras that are bought in shops? 5%?

Right now very few are sold in stores I'd guess. I went to my two local camera stores and they basically had nothing in stock from any of the big brands.