Pentax's mirrorless strategy

Fogel70 · 07-30-2012, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Raffwal

K-01 on the other hand shows a lot of promise in my opinion. I wouldn't buy a MILC without a viewfinder, but perhaps the next model will have one. Using the K mount makes the cameras thicker than MILCs with new mounts, but the market is different for Pentax compared to for example µ4/3 and NEX. Those two already more or less split the market between them, leaving some niche for higher end products like the Fuji which will not sell in large quantities. Coming this late to the game Pentax with a new mount would be left with what drops from the table of µ4/3 and NEX. But using the K mount makes it a potential mirrorless system (with AF) for people with K mount lenses. And I actually find the new deeper K mount lenses a clever thing. Take advantage of the missing mirror and make thinner lenses that protrude deeper in the body thus reducing the whole thickness while allowing the use of older lenses. And it seems that the flange focal length of the K mount would allow much thinner cameras as well like we've seen with K mount film cameras. So when they manage to make the electronics and SR smaller, there's room for further size reduction.

I don't believe in the K-mount mirrorless strategy, for one Pentax K-mount market is much smaller than Pentax can get if the reach for the whole MILC market. It is in this market that Pentax can offer something unique, not with a system that only is interesting for some of the existing Pentax users.

I just can't remember any successful case of adapting old technology to new formats. Using K-mount for mirrorless seems to mirror what Philips did when they developed DCC, a digital version of analog Compact Cassette with full backward compatibility. So how could they fail?
Digital Compact Cassette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pentax K-mount mirrorless can be a good short time solution as it don't cost much in R&D, but if they start to develop lenses that are not compatible with K-mount DSLR then they get into the "worst of both worlds" category. Why use an old mount if you develop lenses that can't be used on cameras the mount originally comes from, not even with an adapter?

Pentax did almost everything right with Q, they just used a way to small sensor. With a big brother to Q with much larger sensor they would be back on track. Just like other MILC use an adapters for backward compatibility for other mounts.

Philips DCC lead to someting useful, but it would be sad if someting like this was the only thing left of Pentax MILC in 20 years.
"A derivative technology developed originally for DCC is now being used for filtering beer. Silicon wafers with micrometer scale holes are ideal for separating yeast particles from beer. The beer flows through the silicon wafer leaving the yeast particles behind, which results in a very clear beer. The manufacturing process for the filters was originally developed for the read/write heads of DCC players."

GeneV · 07-30-2012, 11:54 AM

The main asset Pentax has over other brands is the K-mount. A mirrorless K-mount makes sense as part of the strategy. As everyone else has said, it is the 1/2.3 strategy of the Q which seems out of place.

fuent104 · 07-30-2012, 01:02 PM

I like the idea of the EOS-M to EF adapter. I think it's great. It just makes a lot of sense, and it makes their system pretty versatile. aside from cost, I don't see much downside.

Fogel70 · 07-30-2012, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

The main asset Pentax has over other brands is the K-mount. A mirrorless K-mount makes sense as part of the strategy. As everyone else has said, it is the 1/2.3 strategy of the Q which seems out of place.

The problem Pentax has is that K-mount is only an advantage for existing Pentax users, and those that get a mirrorless K-mount camera often get it instead of a K-mount DSLR. So with K-mount mirrorless camera Pentax just give up some sales in DSLR for mirrorless, which they do not profit any on. Sooner or later DSLR will go mirrorless, but it will probably take some more years before mirrorless get good enough for that.

I suspect that Q will be more successful in bringing new customers to Pentax, than K-mount mirrorless.
But mirrorless systems like m43 and NEX are probably most popular among Pentax users, so all in all Pentax users are switching to other brand when it comes to mirrorless.

I doubt that mirrorless cameras based on old SLR mounts will be all that successful in the future. Compact mirrorless system will probably take over most of the interchangeable lens market in the long run. And if you want to use old SLR lenses just get an adapter.

Fogel70 · 07-30-2012, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by fuent104

I like the idea of the EOS-M to EF adapter. I think it's great. It just makes a lot of sense, and it makes their system pretty versatile. aside from cost, I don't see much downside.

And it will probably only take a few weeks before EOS-M to K-mount adapters is listed on ebay. Simple mechanical adapter at first, and in a year or so it might come advanced adapters so you can control the aperture on K-mount lenses from a EOS-M camera.

GeneV · 07-30-2012, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Fogel70

The problem Pentax has is that K-mount is only an advantage for existing Pentax users.....

The problem Pentax has is that this group seems to be a large (too large) and vital part of its customer base. It is questionable whether I would have gone with a Pentax DSLR if I didn't have 40 years worth of Pentax equipment already. My first digital camera was a Nikon Coolpix, and I was quite satisfied with it.

Fogel70 · 07-30-2012, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

The problem Pentax has is that this group seems to be a large (too large) and vital part of its customer base. It is questionable whether I would have gone with a Pentax DSLR if I didn't have 40 years worth of Pentax equipment already. My first digital camera was a Nikon Coolpix, and I was quite satisfied with it.

Yes, of course it is. but that's because DSLR is the only market Pentax been successful in since they started manufacturing digital cameras, but that don't not mean they can't be successful in new segments of the market too.

With only K-mount, Pentax market will be an ever aging user base. I don't believe this user base is enough for the future of Pentax/Ricoh, so they probably soon come to senses and offer more differentiated products for an increased user base. And be present in more segments of the market. And this is not just the smallest possible niche segment they can find, like GXR, Q and MILC K-mount.

Laurentiu Cristofor · 07-30-2012, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

The problem Pentax has is that this group seems to be a large (too large) and vital part of its customer base.

Producing a MILC in a different mount would not mean dropping production of DSLRs - they could keep those going for years in parallel. Look at what Canon is doing with the EOS M.

Alizarine · 07-30-2012, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor

Look at what Canon is doing with the EOS M.

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...

hcarvalhoalves · 07-30-2012, 08:31 PM

I'm sorry but Canon did it by the book. They have a decent MILC with good enough lenses, the right size, and is compatible with DSLR lenses with an adapter that is not ridiculously huge.

While Pentax has both the most compact that no one cares and the huge K-mount MILC that is a pink elephant. They better stick to DSLRs because they are all over the place on the MILC camp.

fuent104 · 07-30-2012, 08:40 PM

I agree with everything you just said. What Pentax did with the K-01, unfortunately, actually diminished their reputation. That seems like a bad idea. The EOS-M is a very, very obvious idea. As far as resources are concerned...well, who knows. I don't know how expensive it is to design and implement a series of lenses. Canon is starting with two lenses. Olympus, Samsung, and Sony were all able to do it. But, who knows, maybe Pentax can't. I would think they would be able to.

hcarvalhoalves · 07-30-2012, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by fuent104

I agree with everything you just said. What Pentax did with the K-01, unfortunately, actually diminished their reputation. That seems like a bad idea. The EOS-M is a very, very obvious idea. As far as resources are concerned...well, who knows. I don't know how expensive it is to design and implement a series of lenses. Canon is starting with two lenses. Olympus, Samsung, and Sony were all able to do it. But, who knows, maybe Pentax can't. I would think they would be able to.

The problem is that someone at Pentax leadership is smoking c**** instead of appealing to common sense. They are trying too hard to come up with something different just for the sake of it.

People want a camera with good image quality, the right size and ergonomics, an option of lenses and some unique perks at a honest price. It's not rocket science. They did it with the K-x, K-5 and K-30.

fuent104 · 07-30-2012, 10:49 PM

You're right. And I remember that, during the days leading up to the release of the K-01, people were talking about how cool it would have been if it had some sort of telescoping mount. It's hard to call the EOS-M a good idea...of course it is good, it is just completely common sense. Even if it weren't common sense, one could have observed the fact that Sony had done it, and realized it was a good idea.

If I give Pentax the benefit of the doubt and assume they are smart enough to be aware of this, I come to the conclusion that surely they would have done an EOS-M type camera if they could have...so perhaps they could not. So now, almost all of the other companies have come out cameras and systems that were considered somewhat revolutionary, or (at least) great solutions to problems. Some of them have taken the market by storm. Cameras like the GH2, NEX series, EOS-M, OM-D, X-Pro1, etc., have all made their marks.

I honestly can't think of anything other than the 645D that is equivalent for Pentax. I feel like the Q could have been that system...if they had really provided the tools for users to fully utilize its strengths from the beginning. It is also very obvious that the Q could have been possibly the best camera ever made for macro and telephoto applications...and it still could be...thanks to users who are devising 3rd party solutions.

Even the Auto 110 system came with "closeup filters!" How is the Q not inherently macro-capable after being on the market for a year?!

Alizarine · 07-30-2012, 10:54 PM

Nice follow up there. Yes, I really think the Q could still be better - though the sensor really could use an upgrade. How about 1"? I think the Nokia 808 has an even bigger sensor than the Q

Fogel70 · 07-31-2012, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Alizarine

Nice follow up there. Yes, I really think the Q could still be better - though the sensor really could use an upgrade. How about 1"? I think the Nokia 808 has an even bigger sensor than the Q

The sensor in Nokia 808 is much bigger than sensor in Q. The 1/1.2" sensor Nokia use is closer in size to m43 than Q.

The m43 sensor is 2.6x the size of 808, and 808 sensor is 3.0x the size of Q sensor.

To use a much bigger sensor in Q would make existing lenses useless, and it might not be possible to use existing mount.

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

07-30-2012, 08:44 AM	#91
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by Raffwal K-01 on the other hand shows a lot of promise in my opinion. I wouldn't buy a MILC without a viewfinder, but perhaps the next model will have one. Using the K mount makes the cameras thicker than MILCs with new mounts, but the market is different for Pentax compared to for example µ4/3 and NEX. Those two already more or less split the market between them, leaving some niche for higher end products like the Fuji which will not sell in large quantities. Coming this late to the game Pentax with a new mount would be left with what drops from the table of µ4/3 and NEX. But using the K mount makes it a potential mirrorless system (with AF) for people with K mount lenses. And I actually find the new deeper K mount lenses a clever thing. Take advantage of the missing mirror and make thinner lenses that protrude deeper in the body thus reducing the whole thickness while allowing the use of older lenses. And it seems that the flange focal length of the K mount would allow much thinner cameras as well like we've seen with K mount film cameras. So when they manage to make the electronics and SR smaller, there's room for further size reduction. I don't believe in the K-mount mirrorless strategy, for one Pentax K-mount market is much smaller than Pentax can get if the reach for the whole MILC market. It is in this market that Pentax can offer something unique, not with a system that only is interesting for some of the existing Pentax users. I just can't remember any successful case of adapting old technology to new formats. Using K-mount for mirrorless seems to mirror what Philips did when they developed DCC, a digital version of analog Compact Cassette with full backward compatibility. So how could they fail? Digital Compact Cassette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Pentax K-mount mirrorless can be a good short time solution as it don't cost much in R&D, but if they start to develop lenses that are not compatible with K-mount DSLR then they get into the "worst of both worlds" category. Why use an old mount if you develop lenses that can't be used on cameras the mount originally comes from, not even with an adapter? Pentax did almost everything right with Q, they just used a way to small sensor. With a big brother to Q with much larger sensor they would be back on track. Just like other MILC use an adapters for backward compatibility for other mounts. Philips DCC lead to someting useful, but it would be sad if someting like this was the only thing left of Pentax MILC in 20 years. "A derivative technology developed originally for DCC is now being used for filtering beer. Silicon wafers with micrometer scale holes are ideal for separating yeast particles from beer. The beer flows through the silicon wafer leaving the yeast particles behind, which results in a very clear beer. The manufacturing process for the filters was originally developed for the read/write heads of DCC players."

07-30-2012, 11:54 AM	#92
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	The main asset Pentax has over other brands is the K-mount. A mirrorless K-mount makes sense as part of the strategy. As everyone else has said, it is the 1/2.3 strategy of the Q which seems out of place.

07-30-2012, 01:02 PM	#93
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	I like the idea of the EOS-M to EF adapter. I think it's great. It just makes a lot of sense, and it makes their system pretty versatile. aside from cost, I don't see much downside.

07-30-2012, 01:09 PM	#94
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by GeneV The main asset Pentax has over other brands is the K-mount. A mirrorless K-mount makes sense as part of the strategy. As everyone else has said, it is the 1/2.3 strategy of the Q which seems out of place. The problem Pentax has is that K-mount is only an advantage for existing Pentax users, and those that get a mirrorless K-mount camera often get it instead of a K-mount DSLR. So with K-mount mirrorless camera Pentax just give up some sales in DSLR for mirrorless, which they do not profit any on. Sooner or later DSLR will go mirrorless, but it will probably take some more years before mirrorless get good enough for that. I suspect that Q will be more successful in bringing new customers to Pentax, than K-mount mirrorless. But mirrorless systems like m43 and NEX are probably most popular among Pentax users, so all in all Pentax users are switching to other brand when it comes to mirrorless. I doubt that mirrorless cameras based on old SLR mounts will be all that successful in the future. Compact mirrorless system will probably take over most of the interchangeable lens market in the long run. And if you want to use old SLR lenses just get an adapter.

07-30-2012, 01:23 PM	#95
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by fuent104 I like the idea of the EOS-M to EF adapter. I think it's great. It just makes a lot of sense, and it makes their system pretty versatile. aside from cost, I don't see much downside. And it will probably only take a few weeks before EOS-M to K-mount adapters is listed on ebay. Simple mechanical adapter at first, and in a year or so it might come advanced adapters so you can control the aperture on K-mount lenses from a EOS-M camera.

07-30-2012, 02:26 PM	#96
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Fogel70 The problem Pentax has is that K-mount is only an advantage for existing Pentax users..... The problem Pentax has is that this group seems to be a large (too large) and vital part of its customer base. It is questionable whether I would have gone with a Pentax DSLR if I didn't have 40 years worth of Pentax equipment already. My first digital camera was a Nikon Coolpix, and I was quite satisfied with it.

07-30-2012, 03:09 PM	#97
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by GeneV The problem Pentax has is that this group seems to be a large (too large) and vital part of its customer base. It is questionable whether I would have gone with a Pentax DSLR if I didn't have 40 years worth of Pentax equipment already. My first digital camera was a Nikon Coolpix, and I was quite satisfied with it. Yes, of course it is. but that's because DSLR is the only market Pentax been successful in since they started manufacturing digital cameras, but that don't not mean they can't be successful in new segments of the market too. With only K-mount, Pentax market will be an ever aging user base. I don't believe this user base is enough for the future of Pentax/Ricoh, so they probably soon come to senses and offer more differentiated products for an increased user base. And be present in more segments of the market. And this is not just the smallest possible niche segment they can find, like GXR, Q and MILC K-mount.

07-30-2012, 07:16 PM	#98
Laurentiu Cristofor Banned Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: WA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,055	Originally posted by GeneV The problem Pentax has is that this group seems to be a large (too large) and vital part of its customer base. Producing a MILC in a different mount would not mean dropping production of DSLRs - they could keep those going for years in parallel. Look at what Canon is doing with the EOS M.

07-30-2012, 08:31 PM	#99
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Originally posted by Laurentiu Cristofor Look at what Canon is doing with the EOS M. 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...

07-30-2012, 08:31 PM	#100
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	I'm sorry but Canon did it by the book. They have a decent MILC with good enough lenses, the right size, and is compatible with DSLR lenses with an adapter that is not ridiculously huge. While Pentax has both the most compact that no one cares and the huge K-mount MILC that is a pink elephant. They better stick to DSLRs because they are all over the place on the MILC camp.

07-30-2012, 08:40 PM	#101
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	I agree with everything you just said. What Pentax did with the K-01, unfortunately, actually diminished their reputation. That seems like a bad idea. The EOS-M is a very, very obvious idea. As far as resources are concerned...well, who knows. I don't know how expensive it is to design and implement a series of lenses. Canon is starting with two lenses. Olympus, Samsung, and Sony were all able to do it. But, who knows, maybe Pentax can't. I would think they would be able to.

07-30-2012, 09:04 PM	#102
hcarvalhoalves Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: São Paulo, Brazil Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,019	Originally posted by fuent104 I agree with everything you just said. What Pentax did with the K-01, unfortunately, actually diminished their reputation. That seems like a bad idea. The EOS-M is a very, very obvious idea. As far as resources are concerned...well, who knows. I don't know how expensive it is to design and implement a series of lenses. Canon is starting with two lenses. Olympus, Samsung, and Sony were all able to do it. But, who knows, maybe Pentax can't. I would think they would be able to. The problem is that someone at Pentax leadership is smoking c**** instead of appealing to common sense. They are trying too hard to come up with something different just for the sake of it. People want a camera with good image quality, the right size and ergonomics, an option of lenses and some unique perks at a honest price. It's not rocket science. They did it with the K-x, K-5 and K-30.

07-30-2012, 10:49 PM	#103
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	You're right. And I remember that, during the days leading up to the release of the K-01, people were talking about how cool it would have been if it had some sort of telescoping mount. It's hard to call the EOS-M a good idea...of course it is good, it is just completely common sense. Even if it weren't common sense, one could have observed the fact that Sony had done it, and realized it was a good idea. If I give Pentax the benefit of the doubt and assume they are smart enough to be aware of this, I come to the conclusion that surely they would have done an EOS-M type camera if they could have...so perhaps they could not. So now, almost all of the other companies have come out cameras and systems that were considered somewhat revolutionary, or (at least) great solutions to problems. Some of them have taken the market by storm. Cameras like the GH2, NEX series, EOS-M, OM-D, X-Pro1, etc., have all made their marks. I honestly can't think of anything other than the 645D that is equivalent for Pentax. I feel like the Q could have been that system...if they had really provided the tools for users to fully utilize its strengths from the beginning. It is also very obvious that the Q could have been possibly the best camera ever made for macro and telephoto applications...and it still could be...thanks to users who are devising 3rd party solutions. Even the Auto 110 system came with "closeup filters!" How is the Q not inherently macro-capable after being on the market for a year?!

07-30-2012, 10:54 PM	#104
Alizarine Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Manila Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,185	Nice follow up there. Yes, I really think the Q could still be better - though the sensor really could use an upgrade. How about 1"? I think the Nokia 808 has an even bigger sensor than the Q

07-31-2012, 12:53 AM	#105
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Originally posted by Alizarine Nice follow up there. Yes, I really think the Q could still be better - though the sensor really could use an upgrade. How about 1"? I think the Nokia 808 has an even bigger sensor than the Q The sensor in Nokia 808 is much bigger than sensor in Q. The 1/1.2" sensor Nokia use is closer in size to m43 than Q. The m43 sensor is 2.6x the size of 808, and 808 sensor is 3.0x the size of Q sensor. To use a much bigger sensor in Q would make existing lenses useless, and it might not be possible to use existing mount.