[deejjjaaaa]

Actually, Ricoh has a pretty sophisticated "pro" network set up for their copier and office management division here in the U.S.

somehow their "pretty sophisticated "pro" network set up for their copier and office management division" does not help to sell a lot of their own cameras , so what makes you think that it will be helpful to sell Pentax labeled photogear, if it can't move Ricoh labeled photogear ?

[Blue]

there is no Pentax (even the sale of certain business from Hoya to Ricoh is not formally completed yet) and Ricoh is perfectly fine to make a camera w/ no lenses - see GXR M module... so new owner might as well do a FF mirrorless w/o lenses... albeit it might not be called Pentax... it is time to stop using Pentax, Pentax, Pentax... get used to Ricoh.

I don't think so, otherwise why would Ricoh drop nearly half of there 2010 net profits to acquire Pentax. Ricoh was already doing the GXR thing. What they will have as of Oct 1 is a dSLR k-mount and 645D systems along with the new Q(uirky) system. The division will need a name and why not a recognizable name, the name that taught Nikon and Canon what an SLR was supposed to look like and how it should work.

[Blue]

somehow their "pretty sophisticated "pro" network set up for their copier and office management division" does not help to sell a lot of their own cameras , so what makes you think that it will be helpful to sell Pentax labeled photogear, if it can't move Ricoh labeled photogear ?

Well, they just kicked canon's ass off my campus. However, you are talking out of your head because I don't think anyone would call the GXR a pro system. Besides, that system is just now getting traction and just started being sold by BH and Adorama. Look how long it has taken the m4/3 system to start getting traction as a system. Apparently Ricoh realized they needed a dSLR system(s) and saw the chance to get back into the k-mount game and got the digital medium format to boot.

[fejker]

What did I miss from your comment? I use k-mount lenses several times a week on m4/3 bodies and that is no different than using them on a canon ef regardless if it is a ff canon or aps-c Canon. There may be an issue with the mirror on some ff canon bodies but not registration with the appropriate adapter.

If you're willing to have a smaller image because a lens can't cover the whole sensor of a mirrorless APS-C or FF if pushed back, then there is no problem. The m4/3 is different as I said before because the image sensor is even smaller than an APS-C. Yes, you can use an adapter to move the lens away from the sensor, but what's the point if you're aiming for a compact camera.

[Christine Tham]

I wouldn't go so far as calling Canon focusing magical, just a few weeks ago a friend of mine was having trouble focusing with his 5D MKII and 24-105mm f/4 IS USM L glass.

I was talking about a specific camera/lens combo (actually, I wasn't even thinking 5DMkII - the AF on the 5D isn't actually as good as their EOS 1D/1Ds for example, but I am hoping the AF from the 1D will trickle down to the 5DMkIII)

As you pointed out the AF speed also depends on the lens - use a cheap lens and you get what you paid for. For example, there is a difference in focusing speed between the 200mm f2.8 and 200mm f2.

Would you mind elaborating on this? Do you need anything more than 31, 43, 50, 77, 100, ... maybe a wider lens would be nice.

If you are happy with that range then good on you. As for wider lens, I can sell you my FA* 24mm f2 ...

All this from a person who puts a Hello Kitty sticker on her camera.

So - I think you've proven my point - Pentax like making quirky cameras. I like quirky cameras. Therefore I am completely happy with Pentax's brand positioning.

I think Pentax knows what it's doing.

Funnily enough, I also believe Pentax knows what they are doing, and I am happy with what they have produced so far, and their current product strategy. This thread is about people wishing that Pentax would change their product strategy, which I don't agree (and hopefully, Pentax is not listening).

[fejker]

I was talking about a specific camera/lens combo (actually, I wasn't even thinking 5DMkII - the AF on the 5D isn't actually as good as their EOS 1D/1Ds for example, but I am hoping the AF from the 1D will trickle down to the 5DMkIII)

Great, now we're comparing the K-5 to the expensive 1D series and calling it magical. Well for a $4k+ camera I expect AF to be perfect but on the Canon it clearly isn't (Nikon D3 is still better).

As you pointed out the AF speed also depends on the lens - use a cheap lens and you get what you paid for. For example, there is a difference in focusing speed between the 200mm f2.8 and 200mm f2.

Agreed, but my point was why pay $2k+ for a lens when you get comparable results with nice Pentax glass for far less money. That is if you're not too much of a speed sports junkie.

If you are happy with that range then good on you. As for wider lens, I can sell you my FA* 24mm f2 ...

No thank's, have my DA 12-24 for now and love it. When the time comes for a Pentax FF I'm sure they'll produce a nice wide lens to go with it.

So - I think you've proven my point - Pentax like making quirky cameras. I like quirky cameras. Therefore I am completely happy with Pentax's brand positioning.

Your statement earlier came out as Pentax bashing but now you're praising them for making quirky cameras - a bit two-sided, don't you think? And I wouldn't call the *ist, K10D, K20D, K-7 or K5 quirky, yes they make colored entry level cameras but that's because almost no one else is and they sell.

Funnily enough, I also believe Pentax knows what they are doing, and I am happy with what they have produced so far, and their current product strategy. This thread is about people wishing that Pentax would change their product strategy, which I don't agree (and hopefully, Pentax is not listening).

Funny, from reading your posts one would think that you're against everything Pentax ever made and Canon is soooo much better at everything.

[Zygonyx]

...If Pentax can integrate just ONE full frame option, with a limited lens selection, and a great DX crop mode, I believe they'll not only have a winner camera, but also a reason for certain people to take the brand more seriously. But to be honest, at least this generation, I don't think that will happen. Despite all the "experts" in the A77 thread, I do think Sony designed a great 24mp sensor, and if the K-3 is a 24mp sensor with modest improvements over the K-5, then I'll be happy to purchase it to augment my K-5 as a new main body. However I think my wedding photography kit will be perfect when I have a Pentax full frame kit with FA Limiteds, and a DA 2nd body with DA* zooms. That's for what I'm hoping.

I hope Mr. Bunnell is reading, and sending these observations to Japan. I'm excited about the future of Pentax with Ricoh. Thanks for reading.

I agree with you.
Adding a new format to the K product line would indeed make so much sense for Pentax.
And for the pleasure of photography that we all share.

[Christine Tham]

Funny, from reading your posts one would think that you're against everything Pentax ever made and Canon is soooo much better at everything.

LOL - just because I said I was considering a Canon full frame camera and don't believe Pentax should make one? I was simply speculating on the rumours of a 5D Mk III in Sep/Oct and if I buy one I instantly have access to my friends' lenses :-)

The world is not black and white - it's okay to be promiscuous in camera brands you know :-)

And if you truly have read my other posts, you will note I am generally not a fan of Canon - I dislike their UI, and I don't like a lot of their bodies and lenses.

However, having used Canon gear, I do recognise that in some respects they are better than Pentax. In the end, all camera systems have strengths and weaknesses.

Speaking as someone who has used several generations of their film and digital cameras and strongly considering the Q, yes, I do believe Pentax is quirky and that's the reason I like them. As far as I know, they have always been quirky, from the Spotmatic days. But I love them for their current product strategy.

Again, if you have read my posts defending the Rilakkuma and Kore ja nai Robotto designs, you'll note that I strongly believe that these are very smart products that are specifically designed to reinvent Pentax as a brand for the emerging Asian market - China is one of the few economies that are still growing and becoming increasingly affluent.

It's because I like them that I don't think they should consider making a full frame camera. They will waste a lot of resources chasing a market that I don't believe is there, and they will find it almost impossible to compete with Canon and Nikon with a wannabe or a niche product. Targeting users of legacy FA glass by releasing a full frame is completely contrary to their marketing strategy, which is to attract a younger and "different" customer base.

Again, if you read their marketing presentation for the Q (which I translated from Japanese in the Q thread on this forum), you will realise the Q is also part of that strategy to deliberately capture a specific market, one that Pentax believes is not satisfied with current camera offerings from any brand. Of course, die hard Pentax fans are perplexed and don't understand etc. etc. - but these are not the customers Pentax wants to target. As I've said before, sorry, full frame fanboys.

PS - Pentax likes my Hello Kitty camera. It's been featured on the Pentax Australia Facebook page, and when I was at PMA earlier this year a few reps at the Pentax stand took photos of my camera to email to Japan :-)

[RioRico]

Should I add to this rampant speculation? Let's posit that Pentax-Ricoh won't be a copycat, will stay quirky, and will introduce (hopefully) game-changing products. Like what?

* The 645D is the low-cost leader in MF. Maybe an uncropped 645D2 cam?
* Established FF offerings include pro support. So, an entry-level unsupported FF cam?
* Ricoh's GXR platform shows promise. So, one or more FF (or other size) mountors?
* Or even beyond: 3D-holographic mountors? Full- or weird-spectra mountors?
* Third-world billionaires like bling. So, something that out-blings Leica?
* Pentax has a history of medical devices. So, an in-body implantable cam?
* Or maybe just state-of-the-art AF and lighting systems? Could it be?

We can fantasize and justify all we want. Let's see what happens.

[Rondec]

It has been touched on already in this thread, but prior to thinking about releasing a full frame camera, Pentax needs a much better support system. My experience is that turn around time on fixing a lens is 2 to 3 weeks. There are only two places in the United States that rent lenses for Pentax. Pentax cameras aren't even in stores. I can walk into my local Walmart and see an entry level Nikon, but not a Pentax. In such a situation, it is amazing that Pentax has any market share at all. Some of those things would need to change prior to launching such a camera.

Basically, there will always be attrition as you move up in price range. The K5 probably sells ten percent of the number of kx sales, just because it is more expensive. Move up to a 3000 dollar full frame and the number of sales will be ten percent of K5 sales. Currently that would be a pretty small number. Build the bottom end somehow and you could feed a full frame camera. You just need to have a good foundation before you build the house.

[Zygonyx]

Yes, i agree with you here also : there is an enormous task in re-engineering an efficient sales and marketing network... but the time-span of such a task could meet the FF R&D necessary delay, say 2 or 3 years from the scratch.

[gazonk]

* The 645D is the low-cost leader in MF. Maybe an uncropped 645D2 cam?

Ideally (disregarding the availability of MF sensors...), I'd say they should bring two new 645D models: First, a more lightweight, simpler and less expensive model with a lower-resolution (20-30mp?) (but possibly video-capable) sensor. The point of this model would be to attract more advanced amateurs to the 645 system (for instance those that think "FF" but don't have a large investment in old Pentax FF glass, so the exact format isn't really important). And second, a new model for the pros. This should be uncropped or less-cropped and with higher resolution (60mp? 80mp?).

[Elva]

I had a good giggle at the remark that someone made that canon lenses are of better quality than Pentax. I think Pentax lenses are just as good as Canon or Nikon and that the maid difference in image is in the processor software that is used to give the Canon or Nikon look just as Pentax has it own look in the image. I read some years back that Leica used contrast to make their lenses appear more sharp than they really are. In the same way all lens manufactures use different degrees of true sharpness, contrast, coatings, different glass and a few other tricks to give the 'look' that they want for their brand. All designs use computer aided designs to create what can be considered a good lens so it is in the manufacturing tolerances and errors that cause variances within any batch of glass that cause a bad or good lens to come off the production lines. Just some thoughts on some facts. As far as FF verses smaller size sensors one must remember that a lens that covers a greater area requires less tolerances in manufacture where as a equal quality lens that is designed to be used with a small sensor has to have a greater close tolerance to manufacture so often a lens less than FF can be a far better lens overall and that its FF frame equal. Sensor pixel size is more important than size as it is equal to grain in film just as Kodakchrome 64 was a fine gran slide film and in B?W some makes even though were of a high speed still had fine grain as the salts used in its manufacture were small in crystal size. Things to think about.

[jsherman999]

...
Again, if you read their marketing presentation for the Q (which I translated from Japanese in the Q thread on this forum), you will realise the Q is also part of that strategy to deliberately capture a specific market, one that Pentax believes is not satisfied with current camera offerings from any brand. Of course, die hard Pentax fans are perplexed and don't understand etc. etc. - but these are not the customers Pentax wants to target. As I've said before, sorry, full frame fanboys.

I guess I'd have to say that the ''Q" does suit you very well - to a 'T', in fact. After review of your needs and examples, I do think your time and money would be wasted on a FF camera anyway. 'Q' is for you.




.

[Blue]

If you're willing to have a smaller image because a lens can't cover the whole sensor of a mirrorless APS-C or FF if pushed back, then there is no problem. The m4/3 is different as I said before because the image sensor is even smaller than an APS-C. Yes, you can use an adapter to move the lens away from the sensor, but what's the point if you're aiming for a compact camera.

Actually, you are flat wrong. There is no problem with k-mount lenses covering the 4/3 sensor with registration distance adjusted for by the adapter. Also, there is no problem with full frame K-mount lenses used on canon EF full frame bodies the same way are any k-mount lenses on aps-c canon bodies via adapter.