Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-31-2012, 01:11 AM   #106
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
To use a much bigger sensor in Q would make existing lenses useless, and it might not be possible to use existing mount.
Indeed. That is what worries me - does this mean that the Q system is now stuck with 1/2.3" sensors, no matter how good they are? Too bad. Pentax's aim at miniaturizing things really isn't helping.

07-31-2012, 01:18 AM   #107
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
Well the Q is a nice and small camera, but I don't see it gaining ground in the Europe, since there are plenty off good camera's that deliver the same quality.

The K-mount K-01 maybe isn't the perfect camera, but I still support the choice from Pentax to stick with K-mount for the large sensor MILC. There are a few things it still needs to improve (an EVF for a more expensive version) but it is a camera that delivers on image quality. There is also a need for a full frame version, since that is one big difference between this route and the APS-C only MILC from Fuji, Canon and Samsung.
07-31-2012, 07:07 AM   #108
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
But Canon has the resources.... I think that Pentax's strong aim to make the "smallest ILC" was also the Achilles heel of the project...
That is certainly a big part of the problem. Pentax is not widely known or marketed, and if it wants a MILC to produce a profit quickly, it needs to draw on its present customer base.
07-31-2012, 07:55 AM   #109
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
That is certainly a big part of the problem. Pentax is not widely known or marketed, and if it wants a MILC to produce a profit quickly, it needs to draw on its present customer base.
If a camera company can't pull in new customers, like Pentax did with the K5 and probably with the K30, its heading down a dead-end road. The K01 WS lenses made to fit partially within the old K mount mirror box seem to be limited to slow apertures when a zoom design is attempted. I would like to see Pentax diversify into a second lens mount design that is more suitable for long-term growth in the mirrorless arena.

They seem more than willing to build specialized mounts and lenses for the Q and K01, its just not where i want to go with my mirrorless purchase decision. Thankfully, there are other camera companies out there that seem to better understand the mirrorless part of the marketplace.

07-31-2012, 07:56 AM   #110
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,748
I also think most pentaxians jump ship when i comes to mirrorless. As Pentax don't offer any large sensor compact system camera, there are no other options than to get m43, Nex or any other camera like them.

I doubt K-mount mirrorless will be very successful even in Pentax own camp, unless they can fully replace DSLR.
But they still can't replace the need of compact system cameras.
07-31-2012, 10:56 AM   #111
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
But Canon has the resources....
Resources? Canon built a camera with two lenses. This required much less effort than what Pentax has been spending on 645D, Q, K-01 and their dedicated lenses. Pentax had the resources, but lacked the vision.

Speaking of vision, I don't think the K-01 represents the MILC vision either. It is probably an old concept from 3 years ago when people were still getting excited at the idea of a smaller camera body to pair with the Limiteds that still seemed tiny at that time. Except this concept didn't get adjusted to account for the competition of the MILC systems that were being introduced, so it reached us in its immaculate original form and thus was DOA.

Last edited by Laurentiu Cristofor; 07-31-2012 at 10:56 AM. Reason: spelling fixes
07-31-2012, 11:09 AM   #112
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 5th floor
Posts: 1,328
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Resources? Canon built a camera with two lenses. This required much less effort than what Pentax has been spending on 645D, Q, K-01 and their dedicated lenses. Pentax had the resources, but lacked the vision.

Speaking of vision, I don't think the K-01 represents the MILC vision either. It is probably an old concept from 3 years ago when people were still getting excited at the idea of a smaller camera body to pair with the Limiteds that still seemed tiny at that time. Except this concept didn't get adjusted to account for the competition of the MILC systems that were being introduced, so it reached us in its immaculate original form and thus was DOA.

I do think that Canon has many more lenses in the works though. Since they came into this relatively late in the game, I think they want to test the water before they commit to a rather broad range of lens line up.

As to Pentax lacking the vision, I have to agree with that. But strangely, I became rather fond of this camera, although I have no intention of buying for the time being. When and if the price came down to $300 range in the next year or two, I may buy for the hell of it.

Conceptually though I just question the motivation behind this camera. Is hanging onto the K mount that attractive as a strategy? I am not so sure. Then the surge in lens price came after the release of K-01. Hm . . . . Makes very little sense to me. It seems like they are shooting their own nuts off in the process, really.

If they came out with FF mirrorless with some kind of a viewfinder, then I would definitely buy some new lenses to go with it. I am sure there are takes out there who would gladly buy my FA ltds . . . .
07-31-2012, 08:19 PM   #113
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Canon built a camera with two lenses.
The Q also came with only a prime and a zoom (the other three are "toy" lenses - so in being, that makes only two "serious" lenses also for the Q. And the Q's been around for some time. The K-01, though it is one hell of a good camera - I don't know what to make of it, in marketing afterthought.

08-01-2012, 09:23 AM   #114
Site Supporter
GeneV's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albuquerque NM
Photos: Albums
Posts: 9,775
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
If a camera company can't pull in new customers, like Pentax did with the K5 and probably with the K30, its heading down a dead-end road. The K01 WS lenses made to fit partially within the old K mount mirror box seem to be limited to slow apertures when a zoom design is attempted. I would like to see Pentax diversify into a second lens mount design that is more suitable for long-term growth in the mirrorless arena.

They seem more than willing to build specialized mounts and lenses for the Q and K01, its just not where i want to go with my mirrorless purchase decision. Thankfully, there are other camera companies out there that seem to better understand the mirrorless part of the marketplace.
If you are starting over with a new mount, there are so many choices out there that it would be daunting for any company to gain a foothold there, and the company would have to have the strength to take a few losses. The K01 makes some sense as it integrates with the DSLR line and 50 years of film lenses which are already around even if it does give up some size advantage. They have a better shot at growing the DSLR-compatible mirrorless line, making a little money and learning in the process than with a completely new mount. If the K01 or a similar body had a mirror which tilted up, there would be one in my kit already as it would fill a gap left by the DSLR bodies.

Frankly, it is the Q that makes no sense to me for exactly that reason. You can buy a superzoom on a 1/2.3 platform that will cover most of what anyone will want and offer quality that is as good as most people care about for less money, and it may even come with a GPS. I wonder how many people outside the Pentax bubble really want to spend more money to get a somewhat smaller (with lens) camera with a bit higher IQ.
08-01-2012, 12:18 PM   #115
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
But Canon has the resources....
Resources? Canon built a camera with two lenses. This required much less effort than what Pentax has been spending on 645D, Q, K-01 and their dedicated lenses. Pentax had the resources, but lacked the vision.
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Canon built a camera with two lenses.
The Q also came with only a prime and a zoom (the other three are "toy" lenses - so in being, that makes only two "serious" lenses also for the Q. And the Q's been around for some time. The K-01, though it is one hell of a good camera - I don't know what to make of it, in marketing afterthought.
I am not sure if you were trying to respond to me or not, but since you partially quoted me, I assume you were, a bit.

Canon did not need much more resources for putting out the EOS-M than Pentax did for putting out the Q, the 645D, and the K-01. And at the end of the day, all of these together will sell in smaller number than the EOS-M. Pentax has spent more and will gain less. Perhaps that is why Canon has more resources - because they make sure not to waste them.
08-01-2012, 01:04 PM   #116
Pentaxian
philbaum's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA
Posts: 3,659
QuoteOriginally posted by GeneV Quote
If you are starting over with a new mount, there are so many choices out there that it would be daunting for any company to gain a foothold there, and the company would have to have the strength to take a few losses. The K01 makes some sense as it integrates with the DSLR line and 50 years of film lenses which are already around even if it does give up some size advantage. They have a better shot at growing the DSLR-compatible mirrorless line, making a little money and learning in the process than with a completely new mount. If the K01 or a similar body had a mirror which tilted up, there would be one in my kit already as it would fill a gap left by the DSLR bodies.

Frankly, it is the Q that makes no sense to me for exactly that reason. You can buy a superzoom on a 1/2.3 platform that will cover most of what anyone will want and offer quality that is as good as most people care about for less money, and it may even come with a GPS. I wonder how many people outside the Pentax bubble really want to spend more money to get a somewhat smaller (with lens) camera with a bit higher IQ.
Well I agree that K01 was a far more interesting shot than the Q for what i do. (not saying that the Q doesn't meet other people's needs). What disappointed me with the K01 was Pentax leaving off useful features for the enthusiast like me. If they're going to have a bigger camera - they need to do something with the space, as in adding the tilting LCD and adding a plugin for a shutter cable, I'm not asking for much but give me a camera i can chew on for that much money. K01 successor might be a real winner after Ricoh gets their ideas out there. photokina perhaps?
08-01-2012, 02:39 PM   #117
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,714
QuoteOriginally posted by philbaum Quote
If a camera company can't pull in new customers, like Pentax did with the K5 and probably with the K30, its heading down a dead-end road.
Well in my area the K-5 did attracked a lot of new users to the Pentax system. This next to the fact that a lot of users with K100D/K10D/K20D/K200D/K-7/K-x took the jump and bought K-5. No idea about K-30 yet, but K-01 isn't a big seller, but there are camera's moving from the stores towards users (I guess some allready K-5 owners).
08-01-2012, 08:54 PM   #118
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,190
QuoteOriginally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Quote
Canon did not need much more resources for putting out the EOS-M than Pentax did for putting out the Q, the 645D, and the K-01. And at the end of the day, all of these together will sell in smaller number than the EOS-M. Pentax has spent more and will gain less. Perhaps that is why Canon has more resources - because they make sure not to waste them.
That's a very strong point there. In general yes, they've balanced well between exploring new markets and keeping the current ones they have strong. Competition is gaining, but not fast enough for them to suffer big enough losses. The Q is in a dreadful state I think, what with almost two years already and only the K-to-Q adapter came out (and the pinhole cap...).

I see the point now that you said Pentax lacked vision. True, indeed. Or at least, that vision was too... simple, or tight.
If this was how simple Pentax's aim was...
Q: "To make the smallest ILC",
K-01: "To make an APS-C MILC that has the most extensive native lens lineup with designer looks"
08-01-2012, 10:52 PM   #119
Veteran Member
Laurentiu Cristofor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: WA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,044
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
Or at least, that vision was too... simple, or tight.
If this was how simple Pentax's aim was...
Q: "To make the smallest ILC",
K-01: "To make an APS-C MILC that has the most extensive native lens lineup with designer looks"
They are both niche products - that is their main limitation (645D is niche too). What Pentax needed was something with a bit more mainstream appeal. I would like to see Pentax attempting something like the XPro-1 system - a well built MILC with well built lenses - I am pretty sure they would nail the usability much better than Fuji. And coming up with such a system could compensate for the time lost in bringing it up.

I believe Pentax's main asset is not their K mount or existing customer base but their ability to design products with good controls that are pleasing to use. They have done a great job of catering to DSLR enthusiasts, but now the winds have changed and they need to change course too.
08-02-2012, 12:00 AM   #120
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 376
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
I see the point now that you said Pentax lacked vision. True, indeed. Or at least, that vision was too... simple, or tight.
If this was how simple Pentax's aim was...
Let me tell you what the problem really was.
Hoya.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
digital camera, feature, line, mirrorless, strategy, technology
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax on mirrorless: 'we never rule anything out' Art Vandelay II Pentax News and Rumors 21 01-11-2011 05:29 PM
Question about Pentax Mirrorless Winder Photographic Technique 5 11-19-2010 03:32 PM
Ned Bunnel interview at Photokina - K-5, K-r, Pentax strategy etc rawr Pentax News and Rumors 50 10-13-2010 06:15 PM
Looking at the current lens lineup, ISO seems to be Pentax strategy. Reportage Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 21 10-05-2010 02:28 PM
Pentax strategy danielausparis Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 05-01-2010 05:51 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:35 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top