[Alizarine]

Let me tell you what the problem really was. Hoya.

Can't say that for Pentax DSLRs... the MILCs yes

[LamyTax]

Can't say that for Pentax DSLRs... the MILCs yes

Pentax could have done more even with their DSLRs. The engineers at some point didn't care for what Hoya said and developed anyway.
Now with Ricoh, there are a few dozen new engineers working at Pentax.

I'm just irritated about if they want to continue with PK-MILC, maybe similar to Sony, or have an adapter.

[pinholecam]

To me, the Q is well ahead of its time in terms of vision.


Its only failure was the lack of budget and drive to market it on 2 fronts.
1. As the "I want one too" cool/cute camera for the laymen (lay-women)
2. As the 'something extra' compliment to enthusiasts and their DSLRs.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/194467-pentax-q-real-world-user-review.html

[LamyTax]

To me, the Q is well ahead of its time in terms of vision.


Its only failure was the lack of budget and drive to market it on 2 fronts.
1. As the "I want one too" cool/cute camera for the laymen (lay-women)
2. As the 'something extra' compliment to enthusiasts and their DSLRs.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-q/194467-pentax-q-real-world-user-review.html

It sold to both, though.
I was very sceptical of the Q, but it's been quite a success in Japan with group 1, and I've seen it gain recently with group 2.

Sure, a larger sensor would have been awesome. Maybe we're still going to see that.

[Fogel70]

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.

It's not about starting over with a new mount, it's about expanding into new markets. Markets where no K-mount camera can enter, but a new mount can't replace K-mount either.
K-mount is optimized for existing users, and a new mount is optimized for new users. In 5-10 years Pentax will probably suffer alot if they keep limit thier market to K-mount.

One advantage of a new mount is that it's not only possible to use with K-mount lenses, but lenses from almost any RF or SLR mount ever made. And if Pentax can offer anything unique (SR on APS-C or larger sensor) the camera will be interesting for much more users than only existing Pentax users.

A new mount will also be better optimized for most future users entering ILC market.

[eddie1960]

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.

Xpro1 is niche too, couldn't be anything else with a cost of entry over 2 grand.

Even if Pentax launched a camera like the canon it would not have sold like the Canon will. It likely would have sold better than the K-01 but given the lack of marketing and distribution it would still be a marginal item

I would not be surprised to see the GXR show up as a Pentax variant with a K module that addresses some of the issues of the K-01 for people. given the ability to make various native mounts for it it has the potential to be better than any of the others

[eddie1960]

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.

the 03 fisheye is not a Toy lens, but it is fixed aperture. It's performance is actually quite good from what i've seen
it's actually 6 elements in 5 groups.

It falls between the toys and the prime for quality

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Xpro1 is niche too, couldn't be anything else with a cost of entry over 2 grand.

XPro1 is niche, but the concept behind (a capable MILC with capable lenses) is not niche. I think Fuji messed up the implementation, which is why I'd like to see Pentax give it a try.

Note that the XPro1 is not more expensive than the K-5 was and it was mentioned already that the K-5 was a big seller for Pentax. I see no reason why a lower end body couldn't be produced and the quirky controls and implementation would not have to show up either in a Pentax implementation. This is why I say the XPro1 itself may be niche but the overall concept is not.

Even if Pentax launched a camera like the canon it would not have sold like the Canon will. It likely would have sold better than the K-01 but given the lack of marketing and distribution it would still be a marginal item

Timing was important and I think Pentax missed the window, but this strategy worked for Olympus and Panasonic.

I would not be surprised to see the GXR show up as a Pentax variant with a K module that addresses some of the issues of the K-01 for people. given the ability to make various native mounts for it it has the potential to be better than any of the others

The GXR unit needs an upgrade. And a K mount unit with SR may be rather large. The future of GXR is uncertain too.

[eddie1960]

XPro1 is niche, but the concept behind (a capable MILC with capable lenses) is not niche. I think Fuji messed up the implementation, which is why I'd like to see Pentax give it a try.

Note that the XPro1 is not more expensive than the K-5 was and it was mentioned already that the K-5 was a big seller for Pentax. I see no reason why a lower end body couldn't be produced and the quirky controls and implementation would not have to show up either in a Pentax implementation. This is why I say the XPro1 itself may be niche but the overall concept is not.
Timing was important and I think Pentax missed the window, but this strategy worked for Olympus and Panasonic.

The GXR unit needs an upgrade. And a K mount unit with SR may be rather large. The future of GXR is uncertain too.

Xpro1 is more expensive though, body only it is what the K5 kit cost. with a 35 it sells for 2300. even the 18-135 k5 kit wasn't that much on release day (and it fell very rapidly unlike the fuji)
Fuji I think implemented exactly as they planned. They have sold as many as they produce, but have kept the price high enough to constrain demand to production levels. Just by picking the design and price point they picked a very deliberate Niche, and for the RF crowd who were targeted it still looks like the cheap alternative

I do think Pentax could have done a better MILC than the K-01, but it was developed under Hoya and they were just looking to do it as cheaply as possible. It is a unique item, some people really like it, it is a niche, but it didn't steal from the core of DSLR either
the DSLR market is still significantly larger than the MILC market and it needs the majority of the resources I would think. the K-01 gets a spot in the MILC market while supporting the DSLR market and not draining resources to develop new lenses etc

As for Oly and Pana the strategy had to work for Pana (they had nothing else) and for Oly it needed to happen because 4/3 was really struggling

As for the GXR being uncertain, I think it has done very well for Ricoh, particularly the M mountor. I'm sure a K mountor would be larger but there are design options there that didn't exist for the K-01 (it could for instance be a base mountor that could have various lens adaptors (including AF) attached.
the one thing about that system is it is very design flexible

[philbaum]

This has been an interesting discussion re Xpro1 and niche products.

Its also been mentioned that Canon sells many more camera units than the smaller manufacturers. Its not really units sold that necessarily translates to more profit. Any manufacturer has to recover their overhead and manufacturing costs by pricing their product (and the expected number of units sold) to pay back their costs and produce a profit. Canon and Nikon are like these huge armies that must be fed daily by selling large number of units. They can't afford to consider niche markets where there isn't lucrative pricing. (FF is an exception, a niche market but with really lucrative pricing - or at least it was)

Fuji's genius with the x100 and xpro1 was designing a camera just for enthusiasts, figuring on a smaller number of units sold, and thereby charging more to recover their costs. No deliberate crippling and leaving features behind - how refreshing.

K01 and Canon's M mount seem destined for the more units sold market with a lack of complexity and features (that might confuse - oh no )

Canon's marketing and name recognition probably are the envy of a lot of manufacturers, but there are cons to such a large company as well. Wasn't it last winter when profits didn't meet expectations and the CEO was replaced? Studies have been done of the number of layers of supervision and management between the guy who physically manufacturers the product up to the CEO. I don't have any idea how Canon is structured, but larger companies do seem to have a tendency to become more bloated, and less nimble in the market place. At my bottom feeding level , its just fun to watch these companies try to predict the larger trends and niche markets.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Xpro1 is more expensive though, body only it is what the K5 kit cost. with a 35 it sells for 2300.

First, the XPro1 is not more expensive than an equivalent K-5 based combo at the K-5 launch. I wrote this on camera-enthusiast some time ago:

For a better comparison, look at this:
How much did the K-5 cost when it was introduced? $1500
How much does the FA31 cost now? $1000
The combo is $2500 - that is more expensive than the Fuji.

Second, as I said earlier, I am talking about the concept of the system, not about its implementation by Fuji, so the actual cost of the XPro1 does not matter. There is nothing about the XPro1 system that prevents one from building a less expensive camera model by dropping some features and lowering build quality, like Pentax does with the K-r or even K-30. Fuji has implemented the system for a niche market - so niche that it dropped of my radar as well. Someone else could take the concept and build an affordable system for a wider market - I actually hoped that would be Canon, but they don't seem interested to threaten their DSLR market yet.

Fuji's genius with the x100 and xpro1 was designing a camera just for enthusiasts, figuring on a smaller number of units sold, and thereby charging more to recover their costs. No deliberate crippling and leaving features behind - how refreshing.

No deliberate crippling, just the involuntary kind. There is no genius in their approach either. As I mentioned above, the cost they are charging for their cameras is fair given their features, or at least as fair as the cost Pentax charges for their products. But I think Fuji botched the implementation - particularly the manual focusing part, which doesn't quite recommend their system to those with legacy lenses. I also saw more interest in the X100 than I see in the XPro1. I hope they'll fix the issues and make their system more appealing, but there is nothing very smart about their approach so far. They are bumbling in this market as all other companies.

[eddie1960]

No deliberate crippling, just the involuntary kind. There is no genius in their approach either. As I mentioned above, the cost they are charging for their cameras is fair given their features, or at least as fair as the cost Pentax charges for their products. But I think Fuji botched the implementation - particularly the manual focusing part, which doesn't quite recommend their system to those with legacy lenses. I also saw more interest in the X100 than I see in the XPro1. I hope they'll fix the issues and make their system more appealing, but there is nothing very smart about their approach so far. They are bumbling in this market as all other companies.

The manual Focus is a stupid flaw to have on this one, particularly when it was announced they would have an M mount adapter right from the get go.
The reason there was more interest in the x100 is simple actually it costs a grand less than the xpro. no matter how you look at any of the camera markets the reality is the market is price sensitive.

K5 with FA 35 f2 would still have been well under the 2300 of the Fuji if you want close to direct comparison (there really is no equivalent lens to look at, the 31 is wildly different the 35 2.4 is more basic - though it would be even cheaper then and it is a sharp little lens

It matters not because they are aimed at very different users

when (if) an Xpro2 comes along i imagine they will add focus peaking, but i doubt they will pursue price on this category. Fuji at this level has never been about mass market, rather about filling niches profitably

They are rumoured to have a medium format mirrorless under development now as well (Xpro on steroids maybe given the history of MF RF from them)

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

K5 with FA 35 f2 would still have been well under the 2300 of the Fuji if you want close to direct comparison (there really is no equivalent lens to look at, the 31 is wildly different the 35 2.4 is more basic - though it would be even cheaper then and it is a sharp little lens

I picked the FA 31 for the comparison because it was available at the time and is built from metal, like the Fuji lenses. The FA 35 has been discontinued for a while and only reappeared in stock recently - I am not even sure if it is back in production or this is old stock. And the build is a combination of plastic and metal if I am not wrong.

Even with the FA 35, the difference is not huge: K5 + FA35 total $2000, down from $2500. Still same price ballpark as the Fuji $2300 combo.

[philbaum]

Its interesting and ironic that the first Pentax tiltable LCD screen has shown up on the X5, a PS camera priced at $279 i think. This would be a great add to any K01 successor.

[eddie1960]

Its interesting and ironic that the first Pentax tiltable LCD screen has shown up on the X5, a PS camera priced at $279 i think. This would be a great add to any K01 successor.

in this category it's almost mandatory. I agree a similar thing would be good in a K-02 (and a Q2 for that matter or even the entry k300 dslr that may be headed our way)