[reh321]

I was suggesting something that might have a market, rather than just make reh321 (or me) happy

And I disagree with you in the context of what Pentax currently has and is. I don't agree that they need FF, or new primes to support this, or fancy AF, or perhaps even video. This would be a Pentax MILC, not a rewarmed Sony MILC. The one thing I am sure is a requirement for a modern MILC is an EVF - no modern MILC has truly succeeded without EVF.

[surfar]

I don't agree that they need FF, or new primes to support this, or fancy AF, or perhaps even video.

Well who would buy it if it didnt have specs of other M/L?..RI have to provide product that appeals to many,not few.

The one thing I am sure is a requirement for a modern MILC is an EVF

Yes,thats definitely essential and a WR body....KS-2 size is fine,the bigger M/L bodies are now the size of small Dslrs.

[reh321]

Well who would buy it if it didnt have specs of other M/L?..RI have to provide product that appeals to many,not few.

Yes,thats definitely essential and a WR body....KS-2 size is fine,the bigger M/L bodies are now the size of small Dslrs.

I put EVF because all recent MILC's without EVF have failed

I am reluctant to put anything else on the list, because I don't know which hardware will be available to them, and I don't want to start another silly complaining session because of what they leave off solely because they cannot procure the necessary stuff.

[Robot camera]

I have to agree with some others here, that keeping the K-mount is the way to go. All those lenses out there, new and used, are a great advantage. If Pentax decide a few years later that building a mirrorless with a shorter mount register was a better idea, they would have already learned a lot about the advantages and pitfalls of mirrorless design.
It would be nice to have a mirrorless option, and with greater freedom of design it could be optimised for different purposes than the DSLRs. That would be a great advantage for the Pentax system.

[surfar]

I put EVF because all recent MILC's without EVF have failed

Well theres M/L camera providers still introducing new models without EVF,it all depends what you term as "recent" and how you define "failed".Can you elaborate?

I am reluctant to put anything else on the list, because I don't know which hardware will be available to them

Well you dont need to put mirror on the list,it wont be needed!...But its highly likely everything will be left off the list,its only a remote chance of anything M/L coming to market.

[reh321]

Well theres M/L camera providers still introducing new models without EVF,it all depends what you term as "recent" and how you define "failed".Can you elaborate?

Sony had a line four or five years ago - beginning of the E-mount I believe - that didn't have EVF; at some point they changed their name and became the very successful A6xxx series, but I believe all the A6xxx series had EVF; I believe Sony learned from that series the importance of the EVF. Pentax had two series of MILCs, the "Q"s and the K-01; none had an EVF and they seem to have given up on the whole idea - I believe lack of EVF is connected to their lack of success. Canon, Olympus, Panosonic all made MILC, all of which seemed to be more successful as EVF became available for them. That is the history I was trying to summarize.

[monochrome]

The single, insurmountable roadblock preventing Ricoh releasing a credible MILC is lack of access to the capital necessary to design and construct the sophisticated, automated manufacturing facilities necessary for making an MILC profitable.

[dnas]

Sony had a line four or five years ago - beginning of the E-mount I believe - that didn't have EVF; at some point they changed their name and became the very successful A6xxx series, but I believe all the A6xxx series had EVF; I believe Sony learned from that series the importance of the EVF. Pentax had two series of MILCs, the "Q"s and the K-01; none had an EVF and they seem to have given up on the whole idea - I believe lack of EVF is connected to their lack of success. Canon, Olympus, Panosonic all made MILC, all of which seemed to be more successful as EVF became available for them. That is the history I was trying to summarize.

Yes, the NEX series E-mount cameras, starting with the NEX-3 & the NEX-5 had no EVF. They then introduced the NEX-7 which did, and it was a much better camera from the handling point of view, but there were some weaknesses in the design of the sensor that had problems with some lenses towards the edges.
They then introduced the NEX-6 which also had an EVF.

After this, they changed the product line, introducing the A3500 & A5000 (no EVF), and the A6000 (with EVF). These were the start of the current APS-C mirrorless series (A5100, A6300, A6500)
Notice that after the initial A3500, A5000 & A5100, they didn't continue the product line without EVF, but continued ONLY the series A6000, A6300, A6500 with EVF.
So I think you are probably correct, that Sony saw the importance of an EVF for their mirrorless APS-C line.

[larryaustin3]

Yes, the NEX series E-mount cameras, starting with the NEX-3 & the NEX-5 had no EVF. They then introduced the NEX-7 which did, and it was a much better camera from the handling point of view, but there were some weaknesses in the design of the sensor that had problems with some lenses towards the edges.
They then introduced the NEX-6 which also had an EVF.

After this, they changed the product line, introducing the A3500 & A5000 (no EVF), and the A6000 (with EVF). These were the start of the current APS-C mirrorless series (A5100, A6300, A6500)
Notice that after the initial A3500, A5000 & A5100, they didn't continue the product line without EVF, but continued ONLY the series A6000, A6300, A6500 with EVF.
So I think you are probably correct, that Sony saw the importance of an EVF for their mirrorless APS-C line.

When I had the A6000, I thought the EVF wasn't very good. Just one man's opinion. I see their newest RX100 VI, I think it is, has some kind of pop-up viewfinder. I wonder if anyone in the forum has used it; I have a hard time thinking it's that great.
Pentax always gives their budget cameras things that other camera companies reserve for their more expensive models. I feel like the optical viewfinders in Pentax are best in class and if anyone could make a great EVF, it would be Pentax too.

[Tony Belding]

The single, insurmountable roadblock preventing Ricoh releasing a credible MILC is lack of access to the capital necessary to design and construct the sophisticated, automated manufacturing facilities necessary for making an MILC profitable.

I have to question your premise. A mirrorless system camera is inherently simpler than a DSLR. The only challenging new component is the EVF, and if you can outsource that you're golden. From a manufacturer's standpoint, the ultimate goal is to get a fully electronic shutter readout (i.e. no physical curtain), no moving parts on the camera aside from dials and buttons. The technology isn't quite there yet, but it's on the horizon.

As for Ricoh not having enough capital to make new cameras… As a general rule, if you've got a genuinely compelling new product that people are obviously going to want, there will be no problem getting capital to bring it into production. Now let's try to imagine Ricoh/Pentax coming up with such a product. Hmm… Maybe that's the real problem?

What they need to do is knock one out of the ball park, like Hasselblad did with the X1D. There's a company that a lot of people (including me) had just about written off.

[larryaustin3]

What they need to do is knock one out of the ball park, like Hasselblad did with the X1D. There's a company that a lot of people (including me) had just about written off.

I was just thinking the other day, what if Pentax introduced a medium format mirrorless?

[monochrome]

I have to question your premise. A mirrorless system camera is inherently simpler than a DSLR. The only challenging new component is the EVF, and if you can outsource that you're golden. From a manufacturer's standpoint, the ultimate goal is to get a fully electronic shutter readout (i.e. no physical curtain), no moving parts on the camera aside from dials and buttons. The technology isn't quite there yet, but it's on the horizon.

As for Ricoh not having enough capital to make new cameras… As a general rule, if you've got a genuinely compelling new product that people are obviously going to want, there will be no problem getting capital to bring it into production. Now let's try to imagine Ricoh/Pentax coming up with such a product. Hmm… Maybe that's the real problem?

What they need to do is knock one out of the ball park, like Hasselblad did with the X1D. There's a company that a lot of people (including me) had just about written off.

Actually, an MILC production process is more complex to design and engineer than a traditionally person-assembled DSLR since the production process is more machine oriented. Engineering the clean sheet production process the first-time costs a lot of money. Building a new production facility and designing and acquiring the machines requires significant fresh capital. Capital investment must be allocated over a long lifetime, and while ultimately capital is less expensive than people, the initial capital investment in design and machines to replace people with with automation is probably prohibitive.

AFA a compelling product attracting its own capital, who is to say a RIcoh MILC would be a compelling product?; and who is to say it would be more compelling than all the other Ricoh Corp. projects on Ricoh’s capital allocation decision list? Capital isn’t abundant, it is scarce and product proposals compete for it. If there’s capital available for ten projects and a Ricoh MILC is the eleventh most compelling presented, it doesn’t get the green light.

[biz-engineer]

The single, insurmountable roadblock preventing Ricoh releasing a credible MILC is lack of access to the capital necessary to design and construct the sophisticated, automated manufacturing facilities necessary for making an MILC profitable.

I don't see how a mirrorless camera is so different from a DSLR. The usual advantages attributed to mirrorless camera are:


- Camera size:
--> that advantage fail as soon as other than pancake lenses are used, using K mount would be a big deal, but it would be a huge advantage = Pentaxian can use all their lenses.


- EVF:
--> what you see is what you get: that is true to some extend, no need of a new mount for that.
--> more information in the viewfinder, such as historgram: that is true to some extend, no need of a new mount for that.

The K-01 is said to have failed, however, we have seen a number of K-01 in use, I don't believe it failed beside that K-01 was priced really cheap. The big drawback of the K-01 was lack of EVF and no Outdoor mode for the rear LCD.


How about making a K-1 without the mirrorbox and with an EVF instead, still waether sealed etc. Wouldn't that be a bad idea?

---------- Post added 22-08-18 at 10:07 ----------

Actually, an MILC production process is more complex to design and engineer than a traditionally person-assembled DSLR since the production process is more machine oriented.

I don't know where you get that from... IMO, it's being made-up, for some reasons..

[reh321]

I don't see how a mirrorless camera is so different from a DSLR. The usual advantages attributed to mirrorless camera are:

- Camera size:
--> that advantage fail as soon as other than pancake lenses are used, using K mount would be a big deal, but it would be a huge advantage = Pentaxian can use all their lenses.

- EVF:
--> what you see is what you get: that is true to some extend, no need of a new mount for that.
--> more information in the viewfinder, such as historgram: that is true to some extend, no need of a new mount for that.

The K-01 is said to have failed, however, we have seen a number of K-01 in use, I don't believe it failed beside that K-01 was priced really cheap. The big drawback of the K-01 was lack of EVF and no Outdoor mode for the rear LCD.

I totally agree.

How about making a K-1 without the mirrorbox and with an EVF instead, still waether sealed etc. Wouldn't that be a bad idea?

I believe MILC versions of the K-1 and KP would be great ideas.

[monochrome]

I don't know where you get that from... IMO, it's being made-up, for some reasons..

Investment banking study performed for Ricoh to asses to business case for investing capital in consumer Imaging, which recommended against.

That’s a pretty bold statement. But you probably know more about it than I do.