Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-21-2010, 11:10 AM   #76
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by RMabo Quote
Then you have not understood the argument.

Micro 4/3 is already developed and not by Pentax. So no resources spent to developing a new lens mount. No resources spent to market a new lens mount since it is marketed and paid by Olympus and Panasonic.
Oh, they'd make Pentax pay. There's no free ride. Pentax would be late to someone else's party and that's no good. Pentax would have to market against Oly and Panny as well as try and bring its discerning base along with it to keep current sales going. With M43 having somewhat lower IQ and low light performance than what Pentax has now, many would jump ship.

06-21-2010, 11:30 AM   #77
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by tomtor Quote
There is nothing complicated or changed for existing APS-C DSLR users. Mount the adapter and eg the DA70 on the APS-C EVIL cam and you'll get the same image (FOV) as on your K-X with the DA70.
it's easy if you are not going to consider AF (fast would make it a lot more complicated) and aperture control. but these things are necessary for new lenses with AF and aperture control. camera manufacturers should be considering these things when making a mount adapter. they no longer have to deal with backward compatibility of old manual focus lenses. otherwise, it won't make any sense mounting a crippled AF lenses. that makes it complicated.
06-21-2010, 12:45 PM   #78
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,409
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Pentax would have to market against Oly and Panny as well as try and bring its discerning base along with it to keep current sales going.
As in "please, stop buying K-mount DSLRs and switch to m4/3 instead"?
IMO they should follow their own path. Pentax is too small to beat others at their own game.
06-21-2010, 03:41 PM   #79
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan (Australian expat)
Posts: 166
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
dnas, if it was that easy for them to gain market share, why haven't they? Why do you think it's easier for them to gain so much as 1/3 of the EVILs?
And there are other factors to be considered; launching a new system takes resources (that would be from DSLRs). Delaying DSLR products in order to support an incompatible, competitor's system - what message would that bring?
Pentax haven't been able to get the market share NOW, because they don't have the micro 4/3 cameras that Olympus & Panasonic have!! It's as simple as that.

Two years ago, Olympus had about the same DSLR market share as Pentax. Panasonic had about 25% of Pentax's market share.

Now Olympus has 2x - 3x Pentax's market share (interchangeable lens cameras), and Panasonic has about 2x Pentax's market share. ALL of that market share increase is in micro 4/3.


As for resources,Pentax make the 645D, the R&D for which takes considerable resources, and yet they still do it!



Personally, I think the ideal line up for Pentax(for the purpose of Market share) would be:

645D (and upgrade)
K-7 (and upgrade)
K-x (and upgrade)
Micro 4/3 (replacing K-m)
Micro 4/3 (ultra small, with tiny pancake lens)


Last edited by dnas; 06-21-2010 at 03:58 PM.
06-21-2010, 03:46 PM   #80
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
I personally would not buy a 4/3 or micro 4/3 system simply because the APS-C mirrorless EVIL camera is coming up (SONY NEX)... if I want smaller size camera with changeable lens, why not wait for the APS-C EVIL camera?
06-21-2010, 04:51 PM   #81
Veteran Member
Pentaxor's Avatar

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,513
QuoteOriginally posted by dnas Quote


Personally, I think the ideal line up for Pentax(for the purpose of Market share) would be:

645D (and upgrade)
K-7 (and upgrade)
K-x (and upgrade)
Micro 4/3 (replacing K-m)
Micro 4/3 (ultra small, with tiny pancake lens)
not necessarily m4/3 but APS-C evil. m4/3 is a small market compared to APS-C dslr and P&S/prosumer cameras. Pentax needs something that would appeal both the P&S and dslr market which the m4/3 is unable to do. seems like Sony and Samsung had beaten Pentax to the punch.
06-21-2010, 05:17 PM   #82
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan (Australian expat)
Posts: 166
QuoteOriginally posted by dnas Quote
Personally, I think the ideal line up for Pentax(for the purpose of Market share) would be:

645D (and upgrade)
K-7 (and upgrade)
K-x (and upgrade)
Micro 4/3 (replacing K-m)
Micro 4/3 (ultra small, with tiny pancake lens)

QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
not necessarily m4/3 but APS-C evil. m4/3 is a small market compared to APS-C dslr and P&S/prosumer cameras. Pentax needs something that would appeal both the P&S and dslr market which the m4/3 is unable to do. seems like Sony and Samsung had beaten Pentax to the punch.

Well, the reason I say Micro 4/3 rather than mirrorless APS-C, is that Pentax then doesn't need to develop (with associated R&D costs) a completely new mount system like Sony and Samsung did.
And I don't think Sony and Samsung have "beaten Pentax to the punch" just yet, because for the moment, unlike micro 4/3, neither of those have established any real user base. And that would make THREE competing and incompatible APS-C mirrorless camera formats.
In my opinion, if Pentax establishes another new incompatible APS-C mirrorless camera format, that segment would be further fragmented.

Micro 4/3 is NOT a small market compared to APS-C dslr. Currently in Japan, more than 20% of ALL interchangeable lens camera sales are Micro 4/3.
Sony has LESS DSLR sales than this. And Nikon has only a 5-7% lead over Micro 4/3.
I'm not saying Pentax WILL adopt micro 4/3. I'm just saying that from a sales point of view, without excessive R&D cost, a Pentax line up including micro 4/3 would work BETTER than developiing its own incompatible APS-C mirrorless camera format.
06-21-2010, 05:18 PM   #83
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Photos: Albums
Posts: 842
QuoteOriginally posted by dnas Quote
K-x (and upgrade)
Micro 4/3 (replacing K-m)
The K-x was the K-m replacement. It's basically the same camera, but with a newer sensor / image processor / AF module, faster burst / shutter, added movie mode, and some other minor (mostly firmware) changes.

Pentax only has two current DSLR models -- K-7 and K-x.

06-21-2010, 07:07 PM   #84
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by dnas Quote
Well, the reason I say Micro 4/3 rather than mirrorless APS-C, is that Pentax then doesn't need to develop (with associated R&D costs) a completely new mount system like Sony and Samsung did.
And I don't think Sony and Samsung have "beaten Pentax to the punch" just yet, because for the moment, unlike micro 4/3, neither of those have established any real user base. And that would make THREE competing and incompatible APS-C mirrorless camera formats.
In my opinion, if Pentax establishes another new incompatible APS-C mirrorless camera format, that segment would be further fragmented.

Micro 4/3 is NOT a small market compared to APS-C dslr. Currently in Japan, more than 20% of ALL interchangeable lens camera sales are Micro 4/3.
Sony has LESS DSLR sales than this. And Nikon has only a 5-7% lead over Micro 4/3.
I'm not saying Pentax WILL adopt micro 4/3. I'm just saying that from a sales point of view, without excessive R&D cost, a Pentax line up including micro 4/3 would work BETTER than developiing its own incompatible APS-C mirrorless camera format.
M43 has royalties for the standard, and patents, not all of which are part of the "open" standard. Pentax would have to charge more than Panasonic or Olympus to pay them their dues.

The only advantage to M43 is the ability to swap lenses amongst brands, but because so many lenses use proprietary algorithms for distortion correction, this is more a marketing concept than a functional system tool. Use an Oly lens on a Panasonic camera is nonsense if the Panasonic cannot use the lens as fully as it could a genuine Panasonic lens thanks to the software.

The M43 system is proprietary and it uses a smaller sensor with poor IQ ratings compared to APS-C. If anything Pentax will do an EVIL APS-C system, an APS-C system as we know it, and an MF system (645D). If they can get their lens line-up right, perhaps a single FF unit as well, but not for awhile. If Pentax drops to a sensor size below APS-C and a new mount, they will lose a big chunk of their current 5% market share because they will not have enough resources to take care of their current APS-C base, which is 95% of their sales. All those DA Limited lenses which define the brand need somewhere to live for the next decade+ or Pentaxians will leave to another system, not M43.

I see Pentax 2010-2011with:

1) APS-C EVIL
2) APS-C (K-x+)
3) APS-C (K-7+)
4) 645D

I have long said that Pentax very much needs a 3-body marketing strategy. They have a very large gap between the 2 DSLR models right now both in features and price point. A lot of the issues around EVIL will be cost, as it is likely the EVIL will initially cost more than the K-x slot, but be less functional.

At some point the K-7 slot will become FF. There will long be a market for an APS-C main body, non-EVIL. Right now the big brands are keeping FF high-margin. No price wars. This is the $$$ stream, not to be messed with.

It's also very telling that Canikon have not jumped into the EVIL or M43 race as of yet. That will happen this Fall, but Canon's marketing arm generally shoots its arrows straight, so I trust their knowledge of the consumer base more than a single uptick in one country in one sector's unit sales. Reviews of M43 have not exactly been favourable, so this trend may not have legs.

All this for 25mm of flange distance. Really! And you STILL cannot put one of these M43 cams in a pocket.
06-21-2010, 08:04 PM   #85
Veteran Member
jct us101's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 3,695
It should be noted that those patents are from 2008.
06-21-2010, 10:40 PM   #86
Veteran Member
tomtor's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 382
QuoteOriginally posted by Pentaxor Quote
it's easy if you are not going to consider AF (fast would make it a lot more complicated) and aperture control. but these things are necessary for new lenses with AF and aperture control. camera manufacturers should be considering these things when making a mount adapter. they no longer have to deal with backward compatibility of old manual focus lenses. otherwise, it won't make any sense mounting a crippled AF lenses. that makes it complicated.
I was not discussing the construction of the adapter itself. Aristophanes stated that it would be complicated for users and they would require apps to calculate something.

I wonder what he had in mind, because most users would just look at the finder image or the lcd on the back and they wouldn't care about focal lengths or fov anyway, even if fov would have changed. But fov is unchanged on the evil aps-c + adapter compared to eg k-x.

QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
That fills it in. Thanks. I just called it an extension tube because it would have no glass and its primary purpose is to add flange distance. Interesting about the motors. Maybe it's not so cost-effective (and more moving parts brings up service and warranty issues). Weight and balance would be concerns. Sounds entirely plausible, so much so that I suspect deep in Pentax skunkworks (along with some Asahi beer) there is a mock-up of this idea.

Any design like this needs a menu system that can interpret FL and explain it in lay terms, plus a website that does the same, and a iPhone/Android apps. From an engineer's perspective, the solution is ideal. from a marketing perspective it's...complicated. The ľK initial offerings would have to be comprehensive and standalone as a solution to make a market impact.

Last edited by tomtor; 06-21-2010 at 10:59 PM.
06-22-2010, 05:33 AM   #87
Pentaxian
gazonk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Oslo area, Norway
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,509
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
I see Pentax 2010-2011with:

1) APS-C EVIL
2) APS-C (K-x+)
3) APS-C (K-7+)
4) 645D
Looks reasonable, although I think (1) will/should be VF-less and not EVIL. "rangefinder look" seems to be what sells.

The only problem is the name of the K-x+. K-y and K-z both sound so wrong
06-22-2010, 06:03 AM   #88
Pentaxian
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,862
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
see Pentax 2010-2011with:

1) APS-C EVIL
2) APS-C (K-x+)
3) APS-C (K-7+)
4) 645D

[...]
At some point the K-7 slot will become FF.
If you think about it, Pentax being small, they better leverage on what they have and after filling the K-7 slot with FF, offer an FF EVIL too. So, their optical investments return maximum.

This is why I wrote what I wrote above (ľK and everything). Otherwise, we seem to agree pretty much. Except maybe that I see a need to announce (not deliver) FF this year. Too many Pentaxians would switch brands if not.
06-22-2010, 06:49 AM   #89
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
If you think about it, Pentax being small, they better leverage on what they have and after filling the K-7 slot with FF, offer an FF EVIL too. So, their optical investments return maximum.

This is why I wrote what I wrote above (ľK and everything). Otherwise, we seem to agree pretty much. Except maybe that I see a need to announce (not deliver) FF this year. Too many Pentaxians would switch brands if not.
FF EVIL. Let's not get ahead of ourselves

Better see where the EVIL market stabilizes and who makes what mistakes are made by other brands with deeper pockets. Lack of flash is a real deal-breaker for some of these units; that and weird, proprietary, after-market accessories. Awkward ergonomics. Lenses that are not very good or not IS. Sub-standard IQ. Pricing is high relative to P&S and you get a less rugged, non-pocketable camera compared to a real DSLR. The list of negatives for the sake of a marginally smaller form factor and 25mm flange is pretty long.

The killer for any EVIL system will be an AF video lens. That alone will make many a current current K-7 target audience buy an EVIL for a second unit. For ľK this could the determining feature of the system. (And something I bet Canon has waiting in the wings. In fact I suspect Canon may be looking to consolidate its video/EVIL/DSLR lines)

We may have seen the Pentax EVIL prototype already in the Optio I-10 (Optio I-10 White - Official PENTAX Imaging Web Site)

But the biggest issue will be price points for all these ideas, including adapters from ľK to "regular" k-mount, final sensor size and aspect ratio, video-capable lenses, etc.
06-22-2010, 07:24 AM   #90
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,873
Very interesting read and ideas. I don't know enough to contribute and share my ideas. I was at the camera store last week and saw a Sony rep showing the two new APS-C EVIL models. It looks wicked with almost all the bells and whistles. They also show an adapter (no optics) for their current APS-C lens to adjust the distant between the focal plane of DSLR.

Many discussions about Samsung and Sony are the first to come out with APS-C EVIL camera and potentially capturing bigger market share. I am not convinced that being first is necessarily a good thing in today's competitive environment. I am also thinking that C&N will get into this segment of the market in appropriate time.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
14mm, 17mm, f2.0, f2.8, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Micro Four Thirds discussion juu Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 72 11-04-2010 01:42 AM
Pentax seriously considering joining Micro Four Thirds? iht Pentax News and Rumors 2 04-30-2010 11:49 PM
For Sale - Sold: Pentax DA 10-17mm F3.5-4.5 ED bestmudd Sold Items 2 04-05-2010 07:06 PM
Anyone handled the Lumix micro four thirds camera yet? PeterAM General Talk 0 09-24-2008 01:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:32 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top