[FullertonImages]

Basically, if Rictax just made essentially the GH2, with a tweaked/updated K-5 sensor, and a K-5, and really, really awesome video specs, I would buy 3 of them...

[1shot]

it doesn't even need a full lens line just UWA, WA, Normal for the most part

And an approximately 100~150 macro, as well as a Fisheye. I absolutely need the macro or no deal.

[Chex]

What's known: Ricoh will fill a gap in a market in 2012.
What's not known: Which Ricoh? Which market? Which gap?
What we'll do with this: Speculate endlessly on what is meant.
What we need: Some inside information. Corporate leaks. More! More!
What we'll get: Maybe some hints. Maybe not. Tantalizing, eh?
What will happen here: Did I mention endless speculation?
How long to wait: I'll not hold my breath. Waiting is...

Those of us(me) not willing to wait for a FF from Pentax will probably have a 5DMII/1DX, D700 or D3X/S by this time next year.. and track down adapters for our PK-mount and M42 mounts we don't want to part with..

[innershell]

Those of us(me) not willing to wait for a FF from Pentax will probably have a 5DMII/1DX, D700 or D3X/S by this time next year.. and track down adapters for our PK-mount and M42 mounts we don't want to part with..

Yep, I moved to the Nikon D700, but I am a diehard Pentaxian, which is why I am still lurking here. But a big body is not what I want anymore. I have a Nikon system for that. A nice small body with all the reliability of a full-size DSLR that I can take on vacations so that my carry-on is not as heavy as my full-sized check-in luggage.

[Chex]

Yeah I would have a hard time parting with my K-5... but by next fall I WILL have a FF camera, just not sure who'll be the manufacturer..

[eddie1960]

And an approximately 100~150 macro, as well as a Fisheye. I absolutely need the macro or no deal.

for underwater - I used to dive and imagine macro would be a complete bitch under water? otherwise the mount could just be compatible with other non waterproof lenses
I agree on the fish eye though (hence the UWA in my post)

[Aristophanes]

No one is making a an APS-C "bridge" camera with a zoom lens.

I cannot believe how many tourists with bridge cameras I see piling off the cruise ships.

A non-ILC system with a good EVF and WR is perhaps the ultimate travel camera. Ricoh makes durable workplace compacts. There's something there in extending that profile to a mass market camera. Without mirror, both body and lens can be smaller form factor than a DSLR, plus the Q demonstrates Pentax's capabilities with in-body SR. Yes, there is a lens quality compromise if you go to an 18-200, but even the IQ from these lenses are usually very good, if not stellar. Worthwhile trade-off IMO.

I have always wondered about the bridge camera category. Many people have zero interest in ILC's, or the complexity of DSLR's, but are not interested in photos (or video) from a phone or a P&S purse accessory. They want something not too heavy, but which is solid in the hand. They actually appear to like carrying a camera around the neck. There's a whole process to their memory as a tourist involving the act of raising the camera to the eye, framing, and shooting. I think the camera is a necessary mnemonic device now.

That's the biggest gap I see in the market. If done right it could become a very powerful second camera for many shooters of DSLR's, and a mass market product in its own space. It would have to come in at about the price range of a low-end M43. I think that's doable.

[eddie1960]

An apsc bridge would indeed fill a gap in the market. I did notice a large number of bridge cameras when i was at the touristy sites when i was in Barcelona recently. the trick is to hit a price point below m4/3 and have all the idiot proof features like a panasonic superzoom with a bigger sensor

[Aristophanes]

A blast from the past:

And an analysis of such a system from the present:

AE2-16-50

[RBellavance]

An APS-C bridge is indeed an intriguing idea. But in the spirit of being different (and being truly the ultimate travel camera), what about offering an ultra-wide lens ? Something like 14-70mm, maybe ? Then again, maybe that would make the lens overly bulky.

[johnmflores]

No one is making a an APS-C "bridge" camera with a zoom lens.

I cannot believe how many tourists with bridge cameras I see piling off the cruise ships.

A non-ILC system with a good EVF and WR is perhaps the ultimate travel camera. Ricoh makes durable workplace compacts. There's something there in extending that profile to a mass market camera. Without mirror, both body and lens can be smaller form factor than a DSLR, plus the Q demonstrates Pentax's capabilities with in-body SR. Yes, there is a lens quality compromise if you go to an 18-200, but even the IQ from these lenses are usually very good, if not stellar. Worthwhile trade-off IMO.

I have always wondered about the bridge camera category. Many people have zero interest in ILC's, or the complexity of DSLR's, but are not interested in photos (or video) from a phone or a P&S purse accessory. They want something not too heavy, but which is solid in the hand. They actually appear to like carrying a camera around the neck. There's a whole process to their memory as a tourist involving the act of raising the camera to the eye, framing, and shooting. I think the camera is a necessary mnemonic device now.

That's the biggest gap I see in the market. If done right it could become a very powerful second camera for many shooters of DSLR's, and a mass market product in its own space. It would have to come in at about the price range of a low-end M43. I think that's doable.

An apsc bridge would indeed fill a gap in the market. I did notice a large number of bridge cameras when i was at the touristy sites when i was in Barcelona recently. the trick is to hit a price point below m4/3 and have all the idiot proof features like a panasonic superzoom with a bigger sensor

Methinks that the future "bridge" camera will actually cross multiple rivers - better IQ than a phone or P&S, zoomier, video, and connection to the cloud. A 10x zoom that performs well in low light and shoots good HD video may do the trick.

Sony may have been early with the R1


But maybe today's faster processors and improved sensors will finally make bridge cameras attractive to all:




Or maybe not

[jogiba]

Funny, I was looking around for some old stuff and came across this one. Ricoh i700 (did Apple find it's i at Ricoh?).


.

The iMac came out in 1998 and the Ricoh i700 came out in 2000.

[RioRico]

The iMac came out in 1998 and the Ricoh i700 came out in 2000.

But the iDunno is eternal.

[1shot]

for underwater - I used to dive and imagine macro would be a complete bitch under water? otherwise the mount could just be compatible with other non waterproof lenses
I agree on the fish eye though (hence the UWA in my post)

Ah, I assumed you meant a rectalinear UWA, which I would sure love. For nudibranchs, gobys, clown fish, ect. you need macro. And, I'd want the longest lens possible to shoot sharks. UW system from pentax is a pipe dream anyway, but I'd sure consider it if they made it.

[Aristophanes]

And, I'd want the longest lens possible to shoot sharks.

Be a man. Use a cage!