[feishui]

I am not saying I won't buy new lenses. Just not lenses for another pentax mount. I am just not enthusiastic enough to keep two lineups and 2X thousands of bucks for my little avocation.
For those who read this thread and agree with me may raise your hand so we know

On the other hand, for a single mount, a company can make and sell plenty of lenses, just like what Nikon and Canon have done and are still doing now.

And if it is very expensive to maintain a lens production, then how do they know if their potentially new xx mount lens lineup gonna sell well? This is not "have to trim the herd and focus on the DA series ". Also, they have already designed great 80-200F2.8 ,85F1.4 and 24-70F2.8. But they are ridiculously rare and expensive because pentax are no longer making them

Because it is very expensive to maintain production for a huge catalogue that doesn't sell well.

they have to trim the herd and focus on the DA series (and to a lesser extent, the FA LTDs).

I agree that lenses makes more money than bodies. say what you like but if pentax / ricoh had to pander to legacy users who would never buy new lenses, and are happy to use 20 year old smc k and a lenses, they'll be screwed.

There's a limit to what a company can and should do for legacy users.

Of course, leaving legacy users high and dry is not pleasant. but the buck must stop somewhere and companies need to make money and grow.

[detritus]

I am not saying I won't buy new lenses. Just not lenses for another pentax mount. I am just not enthusiastic enough to keep two lineups and 2X thousands of bucks for my little avocation.
For those who read this thread and agree with me may raise your hand so we know

let me phrase it in another way - the biggest growth area that pentax / ricoh needs to be looking seriously at is not just existing K mount users who are already invested in K mount lenses and won't buy anything else, but new customers who are moving up from PNS or bridge cameras and are looking to invest in an interchangeable lens system, whether k-mount or another new mount.

if they formulated their growth strategy solely based on existing customers who won't buy new lenses, like i said, they'll be screwed.

so it really doesn't matter how many like minded individuals raise their hands. in fact, the more pple raise their hands, the more it may signal to ricoh / pentax that the existing pool of user is saturated and has no more growth / profit potential and the company's future lies elsewhere.

On the other hand, for a single mount, a company can make and sell plenty of lenses, just like what Nikon and Canon have done and are still doing now.

i wasn't aware that nikon and canon are using the same mount for their rumoured mirrorless cameras? AFAIK, the nikon one will be based on a new mount and canon hasn't even announced a mirrorless offering yet.

u might also recall that canon had infamously left legacy users high and dry when they abandoned the FD mount. they're no worse for it today.

should pentax do the same? i hope not. but if retiring the k-mount means that they can start on a fresh slate, come up with better products and grow their market share, u think they won't do it?

lets just say that when it comes to whether camera companies will protect my investment of legacy lenses, if they had to choose between profits and goodwill, they won't choose goodwill.

will i still stay with the same brand? i don't know. if the new products are compelling and i got the spare cash, why not?

And if it is very expensive to maintain a lens production, then how do they know if their potentially new xx mount lens lineup gonna sell well? This is not "have to trim the herd and focus on the DA series ". Also, they have already designed great 80-200F2.8 ,85F1.4 and 24-70F2.8. But they are ridiculously rare and expensive because pentax are no longer making them

80-200 was replaced with the DA*50-135. 85 f1.4 was replaced with the DA*55 f1.4. 24-70 was replaced by the DA*16-50. these newer lenses are supposed to give the same perspective on APSC as their FF cousins. many pple are wary of buying them because of bad press with SDM. not because they're not great lenses. i personally find the SDM issue overblown and i love my 16-50. but that hasn't stopped pple from being overly cautious.

if they haven't developed the DA* range, many users will be whining that pentax is neither here nor there with its system offerings by making APSC bodies but FF lenses. and having developed the DA* range, there is no point in wasting resources to maintain the FA* range because there were no FF bodies in the pipeline at that time.

will a new mount sell well? i don't know. but they would save money by retiring the old production lines and they'll have time to gradually ramp up the line-up of lenses for the new mount. it may not be an overnight success but if ricoh is willing to invest, market and make smart decisions, it stands a fair chance.

[Noam]

Not going to happen. The primes were designed for a long register distance. To get that distance you need an adapter which will neither be small nor inexpensive. Once you go down that path, a manufacturer is actually better off making two camera bodies for different lenses than one body for multiple types of lenses.

A collapsible in-body adapter frankly, is silly. It would have to be so thick it would rival in dimensions the register distance existing already in the DSLRs. Have you ever used an FA*24 on a K-x? For that glass (and many others) you need some physically large structure to support the optics. This is one of the design reasons why the SLR became the dominant upper-end form factor for cameras: the mirror box needed room and that room could be dual-purpose for large glass mounts. SLR's became the telephoto masters as a result.

@Aristophanes: Not necessarily true, or maybe you're missing my point. I'm not talking about an adapter. I'm suggesting that the mount part will be a separate moving block along a short "rail", allowing for two different registration distances.

It will be a 6cm x 6cm block or frame, 2.5cm thick/deep, made of light metal, and constrained to move along the optical axis a short distance of about 2cm. In recessed position, it will be totally "submerged" in the camera. When pulled out, it will extend about 2cm forward. All electrical contacts can be made through a short flat flex cable.
I don't see why such a big and thick box structure with a short constrained travel path cannot be made rigid and strong enough even to hold your imaginary 300/2.8. The only minor issue with big fat lenses may be that they will prevent the mount from collapsing when mounted. But then compact transport/storage with a big fat lens is not the goal to begin with.

Of course, as I said, I'm just toying with an idea that will most probably not be implemented, but I do think it's feasible and certainly not plain silly.
Another option for K-compatibility without an adapter is to simply keep making the new lenses K-mount, but let rear optical elements protrude closer to the sensor. This is what Canon has done with the APS-C-exclusive EF-S lens line-up, and can potentially allow for more compact lens design. The body, however, will remain thick.

I don't understand why this silly suggestion keeps coming up. I wouldn't want to muck around with something that fragile.

@wjjstu: I thought about this silly idea yesterday when reading this thread, and AFAIK no-one has previously suggested a collapsing/extending K-mount, so I'm not sure what you mean. Anyway, as I said, I think it can be easily made non-fragile.

[GordonZA]

Ricoh will offer characteristic compact cameras under its own label, while trying to bring the Pentax brand on par with Nikon Corp. and Canon Inc. in interchangeable-lens cameras

I just like the last part... "bringing on par with Nikon and Canon" can only mean improvements in lens technology, range of lenses and hopefully a FF body... maybe even a 500mm F4 (subtle hint)

As for EVF... not for me... for the conditions I shoot in, I do not even bother looking at my pictures on the screen on the camera as the screen just cannot go bright enough. In bright African sunlight an EVF is a complete waste of money so OVF is the only option. Also I have yet to see a camera with EVF capable of reducing the time lag between capturing the incoming light and then displaying that on the EVF down to an acceptably fast level to be able to shoot swifts in flight!!!

However, I do hope Pentax does release more and more product that sells including EVF type bodies, then they will hopefully have spare budget to produce a nice 500mm F4 (another subtle hint) and FF OVF body...

[wjjstu]

@Aristophanes: Not necessarily true, or maybe you're missing my point. I'm not talking about an adapter. I'm suggesting that the mount part will be a separate moving block along a short "rail", allowing for two different registration distances.

It will be a 6cm x 6cm block or frame, 2.5cm thick/deep, made of light metal, and constrained to move along the optical axis a short distance of about 2cm. In recessed position, it will be totally "submerged" in the camera. When pulled out, it will extend about 2cm forward. All electrical contacts can be made through a short flat flex cable.
I don't see why such a big and thick box structure with a short constrained travel path cannot be made rigid and strong enough even to hold your imaginary 300/2.8. The only minor issue with big fat lenses may be that they will prevent the mount from collapsing when mounted. But then compact transport/storage with a big fat lens is not the goal to begin with.

Of course, as I said, I'm just toying with an idea that will most probably not be implemented, but I do think it's feasible and certainly not plain silly.
Another option for K-compatibility without an adapter is to simply keep making the new lenses K-mount, but let rear optical elements protrude closer to the sensor. This is what Canon has done with the APS-C-exclusive EF-S lens line-up, and can potentially allow for more compact lens design. The body, however, will remain thick.



@wjjstu: I thought about this silly idea yesterday when reading this thread, and AFAIK no-one has previously suggested a collapsing/extending K-mount, so I'm not sure what you mean. Anyway, as I said, I think it can be easily made non-fragile.

What ever happened to keeping it simple? It's a solution looking for a problem.

I just like the last part... "bringing on par with Nikon and Canon" can only mean improvements in lens technology, range of lenses and hopefully a FF body... maybe even a 500mm F4 (subtle hint)

As for EVF... not for me... for the conditions I shoot in, I do not even bother looking at my pictures on the screen on the camera as the screen just cannot go bright enough. In bright African sunlight an EVF is a complete waste of money so OVF is the only option. Also I have yet to see a camera with EVF capable of reducing the time lag between capturing the incoming light and then displaying that on the EVF down to an acceptably fast level to be able to shoot swifts in flight!!!

However, I do hope Pentax does release more and more product that sells including EVF type bodies, then they will hopefully have spare budget to produce a nice 500mm F4 (another subtle hint) and FF OVF body...

Hopefully they mean expanding the business so that Pentax has the same lineup breadth and market presence as the others.

[ghelary]

I just like the last part... "bringing on par with Nikon and Canon" can only mean improvements in lens technology, range of lenses and hopefully a FF body... maybe even a 500mm F4 (subtle hint)

As for EVF... not for me... for the conditions I shoot in, I do not even bother looking at my pictures on the screen on the camera as the screen just cannot go bright enough. In bright African sunlight an EVF is a complete waste of money so OVF is the only option. Also I have yet to see a camera with EVF capable of reducing the time lag between capturing the incoming light and then displaying that on the EVF down to an acceptably fast level to be able to shoot swifts in flight!!!

However, I do hope Pentax does release more and more product that sells including EVF type bodies, then they will hopefully have spare budget to produce a nice 500mm F4 (another subtle hint) and FF OVF body...

Hum, given Pentax history and current lineup, a DFA* 250 - 600F5.6 would actually make more sense.

But all in all, I think we should read Ricoh message as "we have great ambition with Pentax, we'll put a lot of money in it, so stay tune" A message to reassure the user base after Pentax has been sold basically.

Pre-buyout rumors were already talking about 2 mirrorless systems by Pentax, so possibility this message is also to say "we're not shelving anything that was on track".

[Nass]

A super compact mirrorless camera was rolled out under the Pentax brand in late August. But it was rather designed for beginners with a small image sensor, which converts light captured through lens into an electronic signal.

Equipped with a larger sensor, the new model will allow for a wide variety of photo styles, such as making out-of-focus areas in a shot much more blurry, the sources said.

I'm probably wrong as usual, but the way that I read this is basically a Q with a larger sensor, so surely Q mount? Wouldn't that make some sense - no need to develop a new body or new mount, and addressing the very issue that most people have criticized the Q on?

Ricoh will offer characteristic compact cameras under its own label, while trying to bring the Pentax brand on par with Nikon Corp. and Canon Inc. in interchangeable-lens cameras, Ricoh President Shiro Kondo said

Fighting talk if ever I heard any. This can't refer to mirrorless cause as we all know, Nikon and Canon don't flippin DO mirrorless (aherm, yet). So it's either the 645 or the k series. Which really begs the question of exactly how is Pentax not on par. Seems to me that it's hard to get away from the possibility that the answers to that question raise the possibilities of exactly the sort of product and software enhancements that many on this forum, myself included, have been asking and hoping for, no?

[rparmar]

No AF means extremely limited sales. These adapters are a sub-sub-sub hobby mostly relegated to the eBay distribution channel. Sales are so small for them they don't even register with market data.

I do realise all that -- but it's irrelevant to my response. The poster merely asked if a DA40 could be used with a (future) mirrorless camera. My reply gives them a solution now. Any future Ricoh solution will have exactly the same restrictions, so there's no point in waiting.

[rawr]

If Ricoh are serious about being 'on-par' (ie equal to/ on the same level) with Nikon or Canon in DSLRs, at a minimum that must require producing a comparable line of DSLR bodies, in APS-C and even FF (since that is important for being comparable to Nikon or Canon). [645D is in another class and not really part of the 'on par' equation]. And it means producing some of the equivalent SLR lenses, flashes etc where Pentax has gaps compared to Nikon or Canon. That's what being 'on-par' means, if Ricoh are serious.

That's a biggish list of todos just in hardware, let alone in sales and support.

It's doable but it will certainly need a big engineering effort, and lots of capital and management focus, sustained over several years, to achieve. Here's hoping.

[Emacs]

If Ricoh are serious about being 'on-par' (ie equal to/ on the same level) with Nikon or Canon in DSLRs, at a minimum that must require producing a comparable line of DSLR bodies

Why to produce obsolete stuff?
It's Pentax advantage of not having large DSLR userbase: they can drop current userbase and switch to modern technology. Or even better: switch to mirrorless + K-mount AF adaptor for the current userbase.
Both Nikon and Canon are being held by their huge userbase and just can't make such a turn.
BTW, the mirrorless market is not so busy as it seems. Olympus, Panasonic and Samsung were strangled themselves by limiting their sensors by mounts design (4/3, 4/3 and APS-C respectively). It's time to make sensors larger than APS-C being a new mainstream. Short flange distance helps to produce compact lenses for compact mirrorless bodies. The advertisements should point on this difference, promising the superior image quality over the oli-pana-sams mirrorless and mainstream DSLRs.

[RioRico]

O-boy, this is fun! I throw out one little press release and all the usual responses are generated here! But I digress.

Why to produce obsolete stuff? ... It's time to make sensors larger than APS-C being a new mainstream. Short flange distance helps to produce compact lenses for compact mirrorless bodies.

This brings up an interesting point. AFAIK the shortest-register 135/FF system was/is Leica M-mount at just under 28mm. What was the first mountor announced for the GXR? M-mount. Coincidence, or... ??? L39-LTM Leica threadmount register is just 1mm longer; adaptation is trivial.

Just suppose, JUST SUPPOSE, that the new Pentax MILC has that 27.8mm register? WOULDN'T IT BE FUNNY if Pentax-Ricoh licenses M-mount technology, and produces a line of M-mount lenses? ARE WE READY for possible Pentax-Ricoh-Leica synergy?

[Clavius]

That is precisely their point:

"Ricoh will offer characteristic compact cameras under its own label, while trying to bring the Pentax brand on par with Nikon Corp. and Canon Inc. in interchangeable-lens cameras (...)"

I presume "characteristic" is a poor translation for "specific", "niche", "special", etc.

I'm crossing my fingers and hope: Ricoh branded mirrorless, with optional K-adapter. And Pentax branded real and pro DSLR's... Maybe with EVF, but preferably not.

[Clavius]

ARE WE READY for possible Pentax-Ricoh-Leica synergy?

Pentax: The DSLR with the biggest bang for smallest amount of bucks, combining with a brand with a not so good value-for-money-ratio?

Will that make Pentax just as expensive? Or will it make Leica quality in reach for poor Pentaxians?

[Zygonyx]

I'm crossing my fingers and hope: Ricoh branded mirrorless, with optional K-adapter. And Pentax branded real and pro DSLR's... Maybe with EVF, but preferably not.

The question is where will go R&D funds, and Ricoh's ambition for Pentax will be measured to their "generousness" as well as their "relevance" in this field : a mix of innovation and perpetuation of the strong values and efficiency that have always been "user targetted", and that made Pentax survive until now.

[rawr]

Why to produce obsolete stuff?

Well, I was just stretching 'on-par' out to it's logical conclusion based on current market and product arrangements.

Basically, I would like to see 'on-par' mean: Pentax will clone just about everything that Nikon (or Canon) has in its product line-up today, at comparable quality and better prices.