[redrockcoulee]

Yes, the 1980s were special. "Big cameras" became a status symbol. And most of the people that bought them were casual photographers who had been fine with pocket-110s before the 1980s and are fine with pocket-smartphones now. It's a bit like bowling which was huge in the 1960s or maybe drones today.

Those days aren't coming back.

The early 80s had auto exposure becoming more common and then the auto focus trend. Much brand swapping and upgrading during that decade. And auto focus SLR were much better than the point and shoot cameras, or at least most of them. I wonder if 2005 to 2015 will be considered the heyday of DSLR.

[follansbee]

I just bought a K-70 and love it...replacing my K-70. I have owned a long line of Pentax cameras including the simple K1000 and the Pentax film 645...solid in the Pentax camp. I just think a Pentax similar to the Fuji x series would be perfect companion for my Pentax primes 15, 21, 40 and 70....and yes I do own a Fuji x.

[reh321]

I just bought a K-70 and love it...replacing my K-70. I have owned a long line of Pentax cameras including the simple K1000 and the Pentax film 645...solid in the Pentax camp. I just think a Pentax similar to the Fuji x series would be perfect companion for my Pentax primes 15, 21, 40 and 70....and yes I do own a Fuji x.

I don't know how many engineers work on Pentax cameras. From the interviews conducted during CP+ this year, they're reluctant to pour resources down the MILC hole.

[BobSpot]

Originally posted by Wheatfield
I don't see mirrorless as having that many advantages. The only one I've found is for using non automated lenses. I've found that my Fuji X-T1 is better with pre A series lenses than my Pentax DSLR is.I have doubts that most people who are buying into mirrorless are doing so with the intention of using glass from the 1970s, so the advantage, while there, is likely not being utilized to any great extent.

Market decline or not Pentax needs to get its share back, currently Sigma is not even bothering to release its latest lenses with a K mount and Zeiss stopped ZK lenses 10yrs ago.
Cost is the major factor a FF 36MP sensor and adapters to use existing Kaf lenses will need to sell for similar price to Sony and Sigma equivalents. The camera needs to have a good EVF, autofocus, articulating LCD and the traditional quality build of Pentax, which is what Sony are not so good at.
As Wheatfield illustrates even he a long term Pentaxian sees advantages and is using a non-Pentax mirrorless cameras ( while I preserve with my SMC Takumars on the K-01).
The advantage of being able to use old Glass itself will help promote the camera to long termer's even if they don’t do it. With up to date convenient features in a quality body it will draw a share of converts dissatisfied with over heating poorly seal cameras and blue photos, as well as first time buyers. Pentax does have thereputation of quality and true color, remember the reviews when K 1came out. The pentaprism will die out along with the Oldies just as Black and White did in the 60’s they did not convert.

[follansbee]

I don't know how many engineers work on Pentax cameras. From the interviews conducted during CP+ this year, they're reluctant to pour resources down the MILC hole.

I understand their reluctance

[reh321]

Market decline or not Pentax needs to get its share back, currently Sigma is not even bothering to release its latest lenses with a K mount and Zeiss stopped ZK lenses 10yrs ago.
Cost is the major factor a FF 36MP sensor and adapters to use existing Kaf lenses will need to sell for similar price to Sony and Sigma equivalents. The camera needs to have a good EVF, autofocus, articulating LCD and the traditional quality build of Pentax, which is what Sony are not so good at.
As Wheatfield illustrates even he a long term Pentaxian sees advantages and is using a non-Pentax mirrorless cameras ( while I preserve with my SMC Takumars on the K-01).
The advantage of being able to use old Glass itself will help promote the camera to long termer's even if they don’t do it. With up to date convenient features in a quality body it will draw a share of converts dissatisfied with over heating poorly seal cameras and blue photos, as well as first time buyers. Pentax does have thereputation of quality and true color, remember the reviews when K 1came out. The pentaprism will die out along with the Oldies just as Black and White did in the 60’s they did not convert.

Every evidence is that Pentax builds for the Japanese market and the rest of us can ride along if we want to. As long as that turns out to be profitable for the company they actually have, as opposed to the company we wish they had, they don't have to do anything else.

[serothis]

As long as that turns out to be profitable for the company they actually have

This kind of the point. their profitability is questionable. Their latest earnings report doesn't paint a rosy picture. And their official forecast only suggests things will get worse.

Financial Data > Financial Results | Global | Ricoh

Sticking to tradition put pentax behind the 8ball when transitioning to digital. Sticking to their guns because that's what the base wants is a surefire way to stagnate to death.

I want pentax to survive and thrive. The theta is a good example of pentax jumping ahead in a market. They need to keep doing that.

[reh321]

This kind of the point. their profitability is questionable. Their latest earnings report doesn't paint a rosy picture. And their official forecast only suggests things will get worse.

Financial Data > Financial Results | Global | Ricoh

Sticking to tradition put pentax behind the 8ball when transitioning to digital. Sticking to their guns because that's what the base wants is a surefire way to stagnate to death.

I want pentax to survive and thrive. The theta is a good example of pentax jumping ahead in a market. They need to keep doing that.

Were they any less adroit than Nikon was in the transition to digital?

I would have never thought of the Theta on my own. What in particular are you thinking they should do with K-mount to "up their game"? This thread is mostly about MILC - do you really think that a K-mount MILC would "turn heads"?

[UncleVanya]

Market decline or not Pentax needs to get its share back, currently Sigma is not even bothering to release its latest lenses with a K mount and Zeiss stopped ZK lenses 10yrs ago.
Cost is the major factor a FF 36MP sensor and adapters to use existing Kaf lenses will need to sell for similar price to Sony and Sigma equivalents. The camera needs to have a good EVF, autofocus, articulating LCD and the traditional quality build of Pentax, which is what Sony are not so good at.
As Wheatfield illustrates even he a long term Pentaxian sees advantages and is using a non-Pentax mirrorless cameras ( while I preserve with my SMC Takumars on the K-01).
The advantage of being able to use old Glass itself will help promote the camera to long termer's even if they don’t do it. With up to date convenient features in a quality body it will draw a share of converts dissatisfied with over heating poorly seal cameras and blue photos, as well as first time buyers. Pentax does have thereputation of quality and true color, remember the reviews when K 1came out. The pentaprism will die out along with the Oldies just as Black and White did in the 60’s they did not convert.

KAF4 may in fact be the way to get Sigma and others back.. The problem with Pentax backward compatibilty was that they clung to their mechanical aperture method even after the bigger players moved to electronic aperture. This meant that over time the newer designed 3rd party lenses were being designed in a way that might be complicated to retrofit to mechanical aperture actuation. Eventually the small market didn't make it worth the extra effort. KAF4 with electronic aperture may make it easier to bring Pentax back into the fold for these folks.

[serothis]

Were they any less adroit than Nikon was in the transition to digital?

I would have never thought of the Theta on my own. What in particular are you thinking they should do with K-mount to "up their game"? This thread is mostly about MILC - do you really think that a K-mount MILC would "turn heads"?

I think that MILC is an undeniably large market. Pentax has a long history of lagging behind the market and it repeatedly bites them in the butt. But when they push past the status quo they do fantastic. The theta which has been a huge sales success. The 645D/N have been the gold standard (for "entry" level MF). And the K-1 brought all the features the Canon/Nikon still won't to FF.

As for the specifics on the MILC. I've advocated that if pentax creates a MILC, they need to create a new mount with it. That means new lenses, which makes a step investment. But that blow could be eased if they have an adapter ready on day 1. Build it rugged like a MILC version of the k-1 (or k-1II) and stuffed to the gills with the same features.

If they really wanted to rock the camera world, they would make the camera hyper customizable. By that I mean things no one else is doing like being able to load your own custom processing profiles from lightroom (or other editors) into the camera for auto processing. PF members have a wishlist of useful features Pentax could use to stand apart from the crowd.

[reh321]

I think that MILC is an undeniably large market. Pentax has a long history of lagging behind the market and it repeatedly bites them in the butt. But when they push past the status quo they do fantastic. The theta which has been a huge sales success. The 645D/N have been the gold standard (for "entry" level MF). And the K-1 brought all the features the Canon/Nikon still won't to FF.

As for the specifics on the MILC. I've advocated that if pentax creates a MILC, they need to create a new mount with it. That means new lenses, which makes a step investment. But that blow could be eased if they have an adapter ready on day 1. Build it rugged like a MILC version of the k-1 (or k-1II) and stuffed to the gills with the same features.

If they really wanted to rock the camera world, they would make the camera hyper customizable. By that I mean things no one else is doing like being able to load your own custom processing profiles from lightroom (or other editors) into the camera for auto processing. PF members have a wishlist of useful features Pentax could use to stand apart from the crowd.

By observation, Japan is the market they build for. I don't know what the Japanese market wants, but Pentax has clearly said that the K-mount is their primary focus.

[serothis]

By observation, Japan is the market they build for. I don't know what the Japanese market wants, but Pentax has clearly said that the K-mount is their primary focus.

CIPA - Camera & Imaging Products Association: Digital Cameras

I know they say that but I'm genuinely not so sure. Looking at the sales break down. In Japan (and asia as a whole) MILC is nearly equal sales to DSLRs. Europe and the Americas are still heavily skewed to DSLRs.

Units dslr | mirrorless
Japan - 673,931 | 544,828
Europe -2,130,377 | 922,834 1
Americas - 2,239,610 | 642,482
Asia - 2,414,083 | 1,846,248 (I think this excludes japan)
Other - 137,707 | 123,589

And notably global MILC sales are up ~31% from last year while DSLR sales are down ~8%. The current market stands at 65/35 split. The MILC growth might slow down but it's a huge market that Pentax would be foolish to ignore.

[BobSpot]

And notably global MILC sales are up ~31% from last year while DSLR sales are down ~8%. The current market stands at 65/35 split. The MILC growth might slow down but it's a huge market that Pentax would be foolish to ignore.

Sticking to tradition put pentax behind the 8ball when transitioning to digital. Sticking to their guns because that's what the base wants is a surefire way to stagnate to death.

If Pentax doesn't increase its market share it will go the same way as the Contax a quality camera fitted out with Zeiss lenses. Making quality products is only one step to success but the market share has to be significant.

Build it rugged like a MILC version of the k-1 (or k-1II) and stuffed to the gills with the same features.

Run the MILC & Prism version parallel, make an adapter to use old lenses on MILC, make new lenses KAF4 and an adapter, so same lens range on both cameras and same K mount (cf Sigma their same SA lens + adapter fits either Sony E or Canon MILC )
Perhaps Ricoh will let the Pentax go if prism view finders die out, obviously I want a bit both ways.
IF Ricoh doesn’t want to ‘pour money down the MILC hole’ should we look at “Crowd funding” by a large world wide group of like minded Pentax enthusiasts?

[dnas]

By observation, Japan is the market they build for. I don't know what the Japanese market wants, but Pentax has clearly said that the K-mount is their primary focus.

CIPA - Camera & Imaging Products Association: Digital Cameras

I know they say that but I'm genuinely not so sure. Looking at the sales break down. In Japan (and asia as a whole) MILC is nearly equal sales to DSLRs. Europe and the Americas are still heavily skewed to DSLRs.

Units dslr | mirrorless
Japan - 673,931 | 544,828
Europe -2,130,377 | 922,834 1
Americas - 2,239,610 | 642,482
Asia - 2,414,083 | 1,846,248 (I think this excludes japan)
Other - 137,707 | 123,589

And notably global MILC sales are up ~31% from last year while DSLR sales are down ~8%. The current market stands at 65/35 split. The MILC growth might slow down but it's a huge market that Pentax would be foolish to ignore.

I live in Japan (I'm an Aussie), and there are generally a lot of mirrorless cameras. Generally, you see mainly Canon & Nikon DSLRs, or Sony (most common), Olympus & Panasonic, and Fuji which are relatively more popular in Japan. I rarely see any other mirrorless (Pentax K or Q, Nikon 1, Canon M, Ricoh GX, Leica M), and I don't see many Pentax or Sony DSLRs.

In my spare time, I fix cameras and lenses, so I see a lot of gear and try out a lot of cameras. (In my university days, I worked part time fixing electronic gear, + cameras, lightmeters and projectors)
I shoot mostly mirrorless these days, strangely because of versatility and retro!!! Or to put that another way, I like to shoot manual focus lenses, the best way to do that is to use mirrorless. It also means I can shoot with just about any lens (Pentax, Minolta, Nikon, Canon FD, Konica, Zeiss, and so on). I find it takes me back to my photography 30 years ago, and I find it really satisfying.

There two reasons why, IMO, Pentax has missed the boat on mirrorless, wasting design resources and money:
1. Q system is like a toy. The sensor is too small, as are the cameras to be taken seriously. It misread what consumers wanted. I see a lot of broken lenses, because the system is not robust
2. K system. I didn't like the styling, but the biggest problem was the size. It used standard Pentax K mount lenses, which made the overall system big, with no tangible reason to buy them over Pentax DSLRs. What should have happened was similar to the Canon EOS M: Produce a small mirrorless body and a basic set of lenses (say, two good quality zooms and a pancake), plus bundle an adapter that adapts the camera to Pentax K-mount lenses(including the aperture lever). And build in "on sensor" phase detection points to make the AF seamless. I think I would have bought that. One model with EVF one without.
Strangely, the Sony mirrorless(APS-C) are generally really good, but their basic kit lenses are quite poor. Canon did the opposite: the initial cameras were just ok, but the kit lenses were really quite good. Pentax could have grabbed a good share of the mirrorless market with smarter decisions that didn't waste development on two dead end product lines.

I live in Japan (I'm an Aussie), and there are generally a lot of mirrorless cameras. Generally, you see mainly Canon & Nikon DSLRs, or Sony (most common), Olympus & Panasonic, and Fuji which are relatively more popular in Japan. I rarely see any other mirrorless (Pentax K or Q, Nikon 1, Canon M, Ricoh GX, Leica M), and I don't see many Pentax or Sony DSLRs.

In my spare time, I fix cameras and lenses, so I see a lot of gear and try out a lot of cameras. (In my university days, I worked part time fixing electronic gear, + cameras, lightmeters and projectors)
I shoot mostly mirrorless these days, strangely because of versatility and retro!!! Or to put that another way, I like to shoot manual focus lenses, the best way to do that is to use mirrorless. It also means I can shoot with just about any lens (Pentax, Minolta, Nikon, Canon FD, Konica, Zeiss, and so on). I find it takes me back to my photography 30 years ago, and I find it really satisfying.

There two reasons why, IMO, Pentax has missed the boat on mirrorless, wasting design resources and money:
1. Q system is like a toy. The sensor is too small, as are the cameras to be taken seriously. It misread what consumers wanted. I see a lot of broken lenses, because the system is not robust
2. K system. I didn't like the styling, but the biggest problem was the size. It used standard Pentax K mount lenses, which made the overall system big, with no tangible reason to buy them over Pentax DSLRs. What should have happened was similar to the Canon EOS M: Produce a small mirrorless body and a basic set of lenses (say, two good quality zooms and a pancake), plus bundle an adapter that adapts the camera to Pentax K-mount lenses(including the aperture lever). And build in "on sensor" phase detection points to make the AF seamless. I think I would have bought that. One model with EVF one without.
Strangely, the Sony mirrorless(APS-C) are generally really good, but their basic kit lenses are quite poor. Canon did the opposite: the initial cameras were just ok, but the kit lenses were really quite good. Pentax could have grabbed a good share of the mirrorless market with smarter decisions that didn't waste development on two dead end product lines.

I find it odd that you said "It also means I can shoot with just about any lens (Pentax, Minolta, Nikon, Canon FD, Konica, Zeiss, and so on),"
and then you trashed the Q, which can use all those lenses and C mount and D mount lenses. As far as robustness goes, I've had better luck with my Q lenses than with my DAs.. The Q lenses are, admittedly, mostly made of plastic, a design choice made to keep the weight down. I can wear a Q on a wrist strap like a bracelet all day and hardly know its there.


The small sensor size on the Q gives it certain advantages (depth of field, size, weight) over larger formats, all of which require much larger lenses and smaller f-stops to take similar images, even if the bodies are slim. A 75mm f1.4 C-mount lens on a Q7, for example, gives the field of view of a 340mm FF lens with the depth of field of a 75mm at f1.4 and it fits in a jacket pocket. The Q system didn't catch on with consumers because it was too sophisticated, not because it was toy-like.


Small sensors dominate the consumer market, but most of them are in phones and surveillance cameras which have other advantages (and disadvantages.) They won't be going away.


The K-01 was an interesting experiment (I have one) that was released too soon, its sensor was (and remains) great, but many of the refinements you mention weren't available to Pentax at the time. It was done on the cheap–basically a K-30 (I have one) without a mirror, different, but just as usable. Outside of the mode dial popping off, it is a workhorse and the much maligned rubber flap over the SD card slot was a great idea.