[monochrome]

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

That’s a pretty bold statement.

I read an extract of an Investment banking study performed for Ricoh to assess the business case for investing $1,400,000 capital in Consumer Imaging, which recommended against. I haven’t actually seen Ricoh’s manufacturing facilities. I imagine you have, Sir.

As I understand it, the issue isn’t the difference in modern manufacturing techniques between dSLR’s and MILC’s per se. It is that Hoya didn’t modernize even the dSLR manufacturing process. However, while Ricoh can continue to assemble dSLR’s at the current volume, using the current process, tools and employees, MILC’s would require specific and significant new investment and employee training, presumably while maintaining current dSLR facilities, employees and pace - otherwise why invest the money?.

That’s how I understand the problem anyway, but as an engineer I suppose you probably know more about Ricoh Imaging specifically than I do.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 08-22-2018 at 07:28 AM.

[johnmflores]

With the new Nikon mirrorless pending and Canon already there with APS-C (along with Sony, Olympus, Panasonic), the reality is that a mirrorless Pentax is very unlikely to attract people already using other brands. In other words, a mirrorless Pentax would be for current Pentax users only, to have them supplement their current kit and reduce their desire to switch away. Because of this, a clean slate design with either a new mount or new body design is unlikely; there's simply not a big enough market to justify the investment in resources.

[reh321]

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.

So, manufacturing MILC economically requires a modern line. Not exactly a news flash. Over the long haul, any product and any company that doesn't modernize will be priced out of the market. In other words, DSLR is ultimately doomed by rising production costs.

[monochrome]

So, manufacturing MILC economically requires a modern line. Not exactly a news flash. Over the long haul, any product and any company that doesn't modernize will be priced out of the market. In other words, DSLR is ultimately doomed by rising production costs.

On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everything drops to zero.

Remember I originally wrote the only thing precluding a RIcoh MILC is capital. As noted in my edited post above, Given the current volumes and lack of marketing and support expense Ricoh can likely continue as they are until MILC’s reduce demand for dSLR’s to untenable volume. As I also inferred above, none of us has real, current, inside information about Ricoh Imaging. I contend adding MILC line requires a significant capital addition to manufacture them in a modern fashion because I believe machine assembly is where they must get the financial leverage to make MILC’s profitably, and new machines require fresh capital. @biz-engineer suggests I made that up. That’s a bold accusation.

Now that we’re fIinging accusations about I’m finished with this discussion. Have at it amongst yourselves.

[biz-engineer]

I contend adding MILC line requires a significant capital addition to manufacture them in a modern fashion because I believe machine assembly is where they must get the financial leverage to make MILC’s profitably, and new machines require fresh capital. @biz-engineer suggests I made that up. That’s a bold accusation.

Assembling a MILC is the same as assembling a DSLR, it's even easier to mount a MILC because there is no need for AF calibration at end of the chain and there is no mirror mechanism. The EVF is essentially additional electronics such as micro LCD and a couple of lens in front of it that is no different from having to mount optics in front a a prism. So, IMO, manufacturing of a MILC is about the same as setting up a line for manufacturing a new model of DSLR. On the other hand, there are significant changes on the firmware, some changes in the electronics for the EVF, and new development for the AF based on on-sensor array. To sum up, there is some new R&D involved in making a mirrorless camera but it is not so much , maybe much for a very small team like Pentax. In my opinion, what Pentax couldn't do given limited resource would be to come up with a new mount, the costs would be too high for Pentax. But if Pentax were making a k mount mirrorless body, I believe that would be very do-able, e.g a K-1 type design modified with an EVF with special focusing aids for manual lenses, and obviously usability of all existing and new DFA lenses.

[biz-engineer]

And one more thing: Pentax already has IBIS tech developed... which is the best choice for mirrorless cameras...