[reh321]

'Historical Role of the SLR is Already Over,' Says Former Nikon GM | PetaPixel

^ There is also this.

But yeah. Many of us still prefer the "old fashioned" OVF.

If people keep purchasing the products, they will continue producing them. It’s as simple as that. We keep going over the same ground under different titles, but the truth is simple; different people have different wants, and the market figures out his low to satisfy them. Punct.

[Wheatfield]

If Pentax is the only SLR maker, there will be no third party lenses. Pentax will have to follow suit.

Nikon and Canon are getting out of SLRs. The mirrorless cameras have a smaller distance between the lens and the sensor. Lens designers use that space when they can.
No new lenses will be designed with sufficient back focal length to accommodate the mirror of an SLR.
With no new third party lenses, won't Pentax fall behind?

You are starting with something of a false premise and then building on wet sand. Pentax is, primarily, a lens maker. They always have been. If you look around, you will find very few third party lenses made for Pentax compared to the big three camera makers.
One of the reasons for this is because people who know stuff come to Pentax for the lenses. If they want to use a Stigma lens, for example, they will more often than not buy a camera from Canikony as they are higher performance bodies, and people, for some reason, think high frame rates are important.
Do you think Pentax fell behind with the superb DFA50/1.4 or DFA85/1.4? Those two lenses are at the very top of the quality pile.

Expect a lot of new lenses from all manufacturers to be a refried SLR lens with an empty tube behind the rear element. It's cheaper and easier to do that than it is to develop new lens designs, and honestly, the average person doesn't know enough of care enough to consider that. All they are going to look at is number of megapixels (obviously more is better, the admen tell us so), higher frame rate (obviously more is better, the admen tell us so), bigger buffer (obviously more is better, the admen tell us so), etc.
They will also be told that the SLR is so last century, mirrorless is the way of the future. And many will buy into this and become just another sheep in the fold. Some of those will discover that looking at an EVF is akin to having someone poke a pencil into their eye and will look for any alternative that doesn't hurt. They will find Pentax, or they will take up a different hobby.

Pentax is in the fortunate position of having a market niche handed to them on a silver platter. History repeats itself in this case, as Leica found themselves in the same position some 60 years ago, and they did just fine.

---------- Post added Jul 27th, 2022 at 09:11 AM ----------

It's not the end of the SLR, it's the new beginning with Pentax : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSvtdcWfVsI

---------- Post added 27-07-22 at 07:32 ----------


It's a bit too simplistic. Third party lens makers don't complete on cameras, they compete on lenses but not quite exactly because the third party lenses are cheaper but often not as good quality as OEM. The proof is in the pudding, take the Sony FE mount, it's the most widely supported by third party manufacturers, Sony FE climbed the ranking to the level of Canon, Sony now being number 1 MILC supplier in the USA. Third party lens support helps sell more cameras!

The problem with this theory is that cameras historically have been sold for very low margins. The money is in the lenses. Proof of this is how there isn't a Third Party lens maker in the world who has sold camera bodies to fit their lenses. If cameras were profitable, Sigma would be selling bodies to mount their SLR lenses on, not just the orphan that is the Merrill (are they even still making that camera series?).
If Third Party lenses help sell cameras, while at the same time pirating lens sales from camera makers, they are not helping the camera maker, they are costing the camera maker money. They are costing them in profitable lens sales while at the same time forcing low margin or even negative margin camera body sales.
They are the bloodsuckers of this industry.

[reh321]

You are starting with something of a false premise and then building on wet sand. Pentax is, primarily, a lens maker. They always have been. If you look around, you will find very few third party lenses made for Pentax compared to the big three camera makers.
One of the reasons for this is because people who know stuff come to Pentax for the lenses. If they want to use a Stigma lens, for example, they will buy more often than not buy a camera from Canikony as they are higher performance bodies, and people, for some reason, think high frame rates are important.
Do you think Pentax fell behind with the superb DFA50/1.4 or DFA85/1.4? Those two lenses are at the very top of the quality pile.

or consider the Takumar 50mm F/1.4, which was the same size as competing lenses.

[Not a Number]

Proof of this is how there isn't a Third Party lens maker in the world who has sold camera bodies to fit their lenses.

I thought Vivitar sold Vivitar branded SLRs, most likely re-branded Cosina bodies. Isn't Cosina known more for their lenses than bodies?

[slartibartfast01]

You are starting with something of a false premise and then building on wet sand. Pentax is, primarily, a lens maker. They always have been. If you look around, you will find very few third party lenses made for Pentax compared to the big three camera makers.
One of the reasons for this is because people who know stuff come to Pentax for the lenses. If they want to use a Stigma lens, for example, they will more often than not buy a camera from Canikony as they are higher performance bodies, and people, for some reason, think high frame rates are important.
Do you think Pentax fell behind with the superb DFA50/1.4 or DFA85/1.4? Those two lenses are at the very top of the quality pile.

Expect a lot of new lenses from all manufacturers to be a refried SLR lens with an empty tube behind the rear element. It's cheaper and easier to do that than it is to develop new lens designs, and honestly, the average person doesn't know enough of care enough to consider that. All they are going to look at is number of megapixels (obviously more is better, the admen tell us so), higher frame rate (obviously more is better, the admen tell us so), bigger buffer (obviously more is better, the admen tell us so), etc.
They will also be told that the SLR is so last century, mirrorless is the way of the future. And many will buy into this and become just another sheep in the fold. Some of those will discover that looking at an EVF is akin to having someone poke a pencil into their eye and will look for any alternative that doesn't hurt. They will find Pentax, or they will take up a different hobby.

Pentax is in the fortunate position of having a market niche handed to them on a silver platter. History repeats itself in this case, as Leica found themselves in the same position some 60 years ago, and they did just fine.

---------- Post added Jul 27th, 2022 at 09:11 AM ----------



The problem with this theory is that cameras historically have been sold for very low margins. The money is in the lenses. Proof of this is how there isn't a Third Party lens maker in the world who has sold camera bodies to fit their lenses. If cameras were profitable, Sigma would be selling bodies to mount their SLR lenses on, not just the orphan that is the Merrill (are they even still making that camera series?).
If Third Party lenses help sell cameras, while at the same time pirating lens sales from camera makers, they are not helping the camera maker, they are costing the camera maker money. They are costing them in profitable lens sales while at the same time forcing low margin or even negative margin camera body sales.
They are the bloodsuckers of this industry.

Sigma even make mirrorless cameras. They must think it's worth it.

[Wheatfield]

I thought Vivitar sold Vivitar branded SLRs, most likely re-branded Cosina bodies. Isn't Cosina known more for their lenses than bodies?

Vivitar didn't manufacture much of anything. Most everything sold under the Vivitar brand name was made by someone else who then slapped the Vivitar name on them. Vivitar was a marketing company, not a manufacturer. Interestingly at one point the name was owned by Ricoh.

Cosina makes both bodies and lenses and has done since 1966, or about 7 years after they became a company. The Voigtlander brand is a Cosina brand, for example.

Using Cosina as an example, one could say the same thing about Nikon as they started out making lenses and then began making cameras somewhat later.

---------- Post added Jul 27th, 2022 at 12:57 PM ----------

Sigma even make mirrorless cameras. They must think it's worth it.

Yeah, they got into the L mount group. Let's wait and see how long that lasts.

[biz-engineer]

The problem with this theory is that cameras historically have been sold for very low margins. The money is in the lenses.

I don't believe that theory, I think the profits are in the camera bodies. The reason I think so is because I was looking for lens elements to design my own lenses, and I've found lens elements to be rather expensive compared to electronic components that are shared across industry boundaries. Lens elements are expensive, especially the aspherical elements, because they are made specifically for a camera lens. Modern lenses also contain AF motors, micro-mechanical assembly, an electronic printed circuit board. All this unique from lens to lens, takes R&D time to design and sold cheaper than camera bodies. The only advantage I see going for lenses is that they have long product life cycles, unless it's being decided to change the lens mount... which cut off the planned life cycle of a lens, hence cut into profit making ability of the lens.

[Wheatfield]

I don't believe that theory, I think the profits are in the camera bodies. The reason I think so is because I was looking for lens elements to design my own lenses, and I've found lens elements to be rather expensive compared to electronic components that are shared across industry boundaries. Lens elements are expensive, especially the aspherical elements, because they are made specifically for a camera lens. Modern lenses also contain AF motors, micro-mechanical assembly, an electronic printed circuit board. All this unique from lens to lens, takes R&D time to design and sold cheaper than camera bodies. The only advantage I see going for lenses is that they have long product life cycles, unless it's being decided to change the lens mount... which cut off the planned life cycle of a lens, hence cut into profit making ability of the lens.

Do.
More.
Research.

BTW, I'm citing fact, not theory. You are citing theory based on what is akin to a correlation/causation fallacy.

[PJ1]

To me the question is not if Pentax will move to mirrorless. I'm pretty sure they won't, unless they come up with something so different that it will really set them apart

You mean like a K-01 ?? Or they could go out on a limb and call a left-field mirrorless a "Q" !!

[ChristianRock]

You mean like a K-01 ?? Or they could go out on a limb and call a left-field mirrorless a "Q" !!

No, I'm thinking something really out of the ordinary, like when Ricoh released the GRD system with interchangeable sensor/lenses, or when they put an APS-C sized sensor in a small pocket camera (GR). Maybe even a whole new camera segment... I think they'd have the creativity to do come up with something unique. But the decreasing market probably wouldn't support it... so I doubt it would happen.

[R.Miller]

I thought about that to. They tried the Q line so why not try something like a GR type camera with interchangeable lenses? Simple answer is the market would probably not support it enough. I'm biased though. I have the Lumix GX9 m43 and love that range finder small package format so a GR system like that would be great in my mind. But if I read the comments in m43 land correctly that type of camera (GX series range finder style) is not really selling that well compared to the DSLR style bodies.

[clackers]

It's a bit too simplistic. Third party lens makers don't complete on cameras, they compete on lenses but not quite exactly because the third party lenses are cheaper but often not as good quality as OEM.

That's not how the lens industry works.

Those third party manufacturers in their own way are worse off than the camera manufacturers as phones continue to dominate picture taking by the public.

For 2011, CIPA were predicting 26 million units to ship. In 2021, it was less than 10 million.

Their profits will have plunged, too, without prospect of recovery.

Cheap, poorer quality lenses are absolutely not what Tamron, Sigma, Cosina and Tokina are interested in these days.

It's not the 1960s, Biz-engineer!

The proof is in the pudding, take the Sony FE mount, it's the most widely supported by third party manufacturers, Sony FE climbed the ranking to the level of Canon, Sony now being number 1 MILC supplier in the USA. Third party lens support helps sell more cameras!

That's a shocking 'analysis', we're in Pentax Forums, not the world of DPR superficiality!

The idea that they became number one because of third party suppliers is ridiculous, they became successful long before the third partiers - who were late adopters - decided they couldn't be ignored any longer. I'm a long time Sony owner and for my Sony NEX 3 and NEX 7 the only Sigma lenses available were three little primes.

No mounts have been more open to third parties than m43 or the 'L' alliance, and look what's happened to them.

Canon are number one in the world, and they're the most aggressively proprietary.

You're an engineer.

You try and ask them for their flash or autofocus protocols!

[R.Miller]

Cheap, poorer quality lenses are absolutely not what Tamron, Sigma, Cosina and Tokina are interested in these days.

I agree. My Sigma lenses in the past have been excellent in IQ and built quality. Equal to if not better than Pentax offerings. Their quality is very good these days. As to the m43 open to third parties, yeah, I'm shocked at how few other non-Oly or Panasonic manufacturers have produced fully auto high-end lenses.

[clackers]

I agree. My Sigma lenses in the past have been excellent in IQ and built quality. Equal to if not better than Pentax offerings.

Yeah, gone are the days when you treated Sigma and Tamrons as 'buy at your own peril'. They're producing great products, and have been for some time.

Samyang has got fine designs, and surely its quality control has improved. They may even make the Irix lenses.

Tamron make the high end lenses for Sony, and Cosina for Zeiss.

[R.Miller]

I think with the internet ratings systems and all the testing sites in play you really have to put out a quality product if you want any sales.