Translation of Kitazawa Interview

**Aristophanes** · 01-03-2012, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by eddie1960

Companies like Pentax and Ricoh (along with Sony and the m43 guys and samsung) have to distinguish themselves from Canikon and drive innovation.

Then you're pretty much going against the majority sentiment here because K-mount is what most seem to want to retain. The SLR format is difficult to evolve substantially. Pentax still needs to work on getting to FF, better AF, flash, tethering, etc.

MILC needs to be a separate strategy, and right now Pentax sees that in the Q with smaller sensors and Ricoh with their quirky, expensive module system the does nothing for K-mount and is the kludgiest MILC on the market. When Pentax's market share is so low, and Ricoh's doesn't even measure, it's hard to see what the strategy is or should be. The best offering Pentax has right now is the K-mount DSLR. It is the cash cow.

The office I work in now had 4 copiers 3 years ago. PDF and other document sharing mandates came in and we're down to one (rarely used), and our archival system is definitely not serviced through copier company document management systems.

Last edited by Aristophanes; 01-03-2012 at 07:16 PM.

**rparmar** · 01-03-2012, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Clinton

Torpedo your existing market, your loyal base, make people fuming mad.

How will the introduction of a new mount automatically destroy all existing cameras and lenses in an old mount? How does it imply that all other development work will cease? I am failing to follow this logic.

**rparmar** · 01-03-2012, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

Clinton's point is valid, though. Recent history is full of technological inevitable things that only seemed inevitable at the time, and never panned out when actual implementation attempts fleshed out practical usage drawbacks.

For example, we're supposed to all be flying helicopters to work now, if you believe the 1920's prognosticators, or hovercraft/air cars, if you believe the 60's future wizards.

That's not remotely close to true. There has always been a plurality of opinion on what the future will bring, with some imagining things staying much the same, and most imagining immediate doom. I think you're getting your information from the covers of SF mags! (And it still has nothing to do with the current argument.)

Originally posted by jsherman999

How much this applies to a new mount is debatable, but 'it's new, thus it will take over' has never been a sure bet.

Just as well, in that case, that I wrote nothing of the kind.

(But I am reminded of why I have unsubscribed to almost everything on this forum. And now one more thread gone.)

ElJamoquio · 01-03-2012, 08:38 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by rparmar

How will the introduction of a new mount automatically destroy all existing cameras and lenses in an old mount? How does it imply that all other development work will cease? I am failing to follow this logic.

Sometimes a new mount means the old one dies, sometimes it doesn't. Usually it doesn't, but hell, I'd be pissed if I bought a Canon camera and a few lenses in 1986 or whatever year that was.

I have thousands of dollars in the k-mount... I'd be pretty pissed if it was abandoned.

jsherman999 · 01-03-2012, 10:02 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by rparmar

That's not remotely close to true. There has always been a plurality of opinion on what the future will bring, with some imagining things staying much the same, and most imagining immediate doom. I think you're getting your information from the covers of SF mags! (And it still has nothing to do with the current argument.)

I was implying that the folks saying 'mirrorless is the wave of the future, give up K-mount asap to get on the wave fully' are possibly being shortsighted. I admit the air-car example is extreme, but the point is valid.

Sometimes a trend can never really catch on like people assume it will, doomed from the start by fundamental problems, and sometimes it does catch on but much, much later than predicted because certain dependencies that everyone overlooked weren't in place yet, or certain established advantages to the status quo were discounted too heavily.

The last computer mainframe was supposed to be unplugged in 1996, according to Infoworld.

And in 1992, Edward Yourdon wrote The Decline and Fall of the American Programmer. Yourdon predicted that within a few years, the computer programming profession in the U.S. would be decimated as most programming jobs would move overseas, where they could be done just as well by much cheaper labor. in 1996, realizing that it hadn't happened yet, he wrote Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer, in which he reversed most of his earlier predictions and gave some 'reasons' why it didn't happen. About five years after that, people started predicting it would actually happen again, and companies began to source out programming tasks, jobs, entire projects overseas, from the US. Now ten years after that, those same companies have pulled a lot of that work back, realizing that some dependencies were not in place, quality and synergy suffered, escalating costs and diminishing the labor savings. They are still outsourcing quite a bit, and this 'total decimation' may still happen, just not as quickly as the CEOs thought 10 years ago, or as Yourdon thought 20 years ago.

Sometimes ideas seem so right, so plausible, that we just push the timeline in our minds. That might be happening now, with mirrorless.

Quote:

Just as well, in that case, that I wrote nothing of the kind.

(But I am reminded of why I have unsubscribed to almost everything on this forum. And now one more thread gone.)

I didn't mean that to be in any way harsh or disrespectful, Robin, sorry if it came across that way.

.

**Aristophanes** · 01-04-2012, 05:49 AM

Originally posted by rparmar

How will the introduction of a new mount automatically destroy all existing cameras and lenses in an old mount? How does it imply that all other development work will cease? I am failing to follow this logic.

I think with Pentax the uncertainty over corporate ownership, the very small market share, the not-so-good P&S line-up, and very slow development cycles make enthusiasts second-guess their investments in Pentax equipment. And with SLR systems, they are investments.

If there is aggregate market share loss due to MILC, and Pentax hasn't even enough share to chase down FF, are there resources to play in all segments of the market? Is an investment in Pentax glass a losing proposition? If you bought into the 43 system, you'd know what I was talking about. The odds of new 43 bodies coming out with features on par to, say, Nikon DSLR's, is unlikely. This diminishes the investment in 43 glass.

Pentax is mostly solid ergonomics and usable design with some very good prime lenses. That's not enough to carry the brand forward in a multi-tier market with emerging technologies with fractured and diverging product lines. It's why many are underwhelmed by the Q. Why m4/3 has taken some market share, why there is buzz about Fuji's X100 and what may be around the corner, and so on.

Zygonyx · 01-04-2012, 05:54 AM

Well, the Q system can be considered as an advanced step forward, as far as miniaturisation is concerned.
With "continuous" progress in sensor IQ in sight.
More-over, with only a few new lenses to develop according to its' coherent concept (which is definitely NOT the case of NEX system for example), it should not be that of a burden as far as R&D is concerned...

**Clinton** · 01-04-2012, 07:16 AM

Here's a truly blasphemous idea for you. If all that is going wrong with the K mount is the registration distance, why not simply reduce the registration distance, call it KAF-4, and make an extension tube with all the contacts for the older lenses.

Better yet, have the camera move the sensor when it detects a non-kaf4 mount lens.

Kunzite · 01-04-2012, 07:39 AM

1. Because they will have to keep:
- A-lens compatibility
- mechanical aperture lever
- in-body AF motor (preferably)

2. Move the sensor... where? The camera won't be any smaller this way, since the sensor would have to move 45mm away from the lens mount. The mechanisms for accurately moving the sensor while keeping the alignment would be expensive, and would also need some extra space.

**Fontan** · 01-04-2012, 11:02 AM

Keeping the K mount is fine with me. Just give me newly designed glasses specifically for FF mirrorless. If not, I will buy M9.

Spare Tire · 01-04-2012, 04:50 PM

Moving film plane has been done before with the Contax AX. While we're at it, it will give us autofocus on all lenses!

Mike Cash · 01-04-2012, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Spare Tire

Moving film plane has been done before with the Contax AX. While we're at it, it will give us autofocus on all lenses!

Done with the Mamiya Six series back in the early 50s. Worked very well too.

Quicksand · 01-04-2012, 05:39 PM

Not for me, thanks. I'm afraid moving the sensor back 20mm or so will bonk me on the nose when I least expect it.

Mike Cash · 01-04-2012, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Quicksand

Not for me, thanks. I'm afraid moving the sensor back 20mm or so will bonk me on the nose when I least expect it.

There will be a new V-shaped sensor, so the back of the camera can be made to accommodate your schnozz.

Which made me think:

We have had countless posts over the years from people gushing about the superior ergonomics of their latest Pentax, going on and on about how it fits their hands. Yet we never heard a word about how a camera fits your face. We just take it for granted that a certain amount of awkward face-smashing goes with the territory.

Imagine if they made an eyepiece that gives you some nose room. Sort of like the O-ME53 does. Not necessarily magnifying or an optional add-on, but design the camera so there is that extra bit of room at the back. Maybe make it collapse into the body when the camera is off, so there's no obstructing protrusion when stowing the camera in a bag.

It would be the kewlest thing since the built-in viewfinder blinds on the ESII.

johnmflores · 01-04-2012, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Mike Cash

There will be a new V-shaped sensor, so the back of the camera can be made to accommodate your schnozz.

Which made me think:

We have had countless posts over the years from people gushing about the superior ergonomics of their latest Pentax, going on and on about how it fits their hands. Yet we never heard a word about how a camera fits your face. We just take it for granted that a certain amount of awkward face-smashing goes with the territory.

Imagine if they made an eyepiece that gives you some nose room. Sort of like the O-ME53 does. Not necessarily magnifying or an optional add-on, but design the camera so there is that extra bit of room at the back. Maybe make it collapse into the body when the camera is off, so there's no obstructing protrusion when stowing the camera in a bag.

It would be the kewlest thing since the built-in viewfinder blinds on the ESII.

Panasonic GH2:

Kind of makes me wish I had a monster schnoz..

01-04-2012, 05:49 AM	#336
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by rparmar How will the introduction of a new mount automatically destroy all existing cameras and lenses in an old mount? How does it imply that all other development work will cease? I am failing to follow this logic. I think with Pentax the uncertainty over corporate ownership, the very small market share, the not-so-good P&S line-up, and very slow development cycles make enthusiasts second-guess their investments in Pentax equipment. And with SLR systems, they are investments. If there is aggregate market share loss due to MILC, and Pentax hasn't even enough share to chase down FF, are there resources to play in all segments of the market? Is an investment in Pentax glass a losing proposition? If you bought into the 43 system, you'd know what I was talking about. The odds of new 43 bodies coming out with features on par to, say, Nikon DSLR's, is unlikely. This diminishes the investment in 43 glass. Pentax is mostly solid ergonomics and usable design with some very good prime lenses. That's not enough to carry the brand forward in a multi-tier market with emerging technologies with fractured and diverging product lines. It's why many are underwhelmed by the Q. Why m4/3 has taken some market share, why there is buzz about Fuji's X100 and what may be around the corner, and so on. Last edited by Aristophanes; 01-04-2012 at 08:20 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Mr. Kitazawa slated to announce Pentax upcoming bodies in Dec 19'th	JohnBee	Pentax News and Rumors	429	01-02-2012 09:57 AM
Question Translation of PM's... Where to switch it off???	Rense	Site Suggestions and Help	3	07-24-2011 06:32 AM
Interview w/ Pentax Head of Marketing - NEEDS TRANSLATION	illdefined	Pentax News and Rumors	17	09-29-2010 02:13 AM
Translation from PMA Pentax Interview - new DSLR body this year and company strategy	Katsura	Pentax News and Rumors	66	09-23-2007 04:15 AM

01-03-2012, 03:47 PM	#331
Aristophanes Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Rankin Inlet, Nunavut Photos: Albums Posts: 3,948	Originally posted by eddie1960 Companies like Pentax and Ricoh (along with Sony and the m43 guys and samsung) have to distinguish themselves from Canikon and drive innovation. Then you're pretty much going against the majority sentiment here because K-mount is what most seem to want to retain. The SLR format is difficult to evolve substantially. Pentax still needs to work on getting to FF, better AF, flash, tethering, etc. MILC needs to be a separate strategy, and right now Pentax sees that in the Q with smaller sensors and Ricoh with their quirky, expensive module system the does nothing for K-mount and is the kludgiest MILC on the market. When Pentax's market share is so low, and Ricoh's doesn't even measure, it's hard to see what the strategy is or should be. The best offering Pentax has right now is the K-mount DSLR. It is the cash cow. The office I work in now had 4 copiers 3 years ago. PDF and other document sharing mandates came in and we're down to one (rarely used), and our archival system is definitely not serviced through copier company document management systems. Last edited by Aristophanes; 01-03-2012 at 07:16 PM.

01-03-2012, 07:33 PM	#332
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by Clinton Torpedo your existing market, your loyal base, make people fuming mad. How will the introduction of a new mount automatically destroy all existing cameras and lenses in an old mount? How does it imply that all other development work will cease? I am failing to follow this logic.

01-03-2012, 07:45 PM	#333
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by jsherman999 Clinton's point is valid, though. Recent history is full of technological inevitable things that only seemed inevitable at the time, and never panned out when actual implementation attempts fleshed out practical usage drawbacks. For example, we're supposed to all be flying helicopters to work now, if you believe the 1920's prognosticators, or hovercraft/air cars, if you believe the 60's future wizards. That's not remotely close to true. There has always been a plurality of opinion on what the future will bring, with some imagining things staying much the same, and most imagining immediate doom. I think you're getting your information from the covers of SF mags! (And it still has nothing to do with the current argument.) Originally posted by jsherman999 How much this applies to a new mount is debatable, but 'it's new, thus it will* take over*' has never been a sure bet. Just as well, in that case, that I wrote nothing of the kind. (But I am reminded of why I have unsubscribed to almost everything on this forum. And now one more thread gone.)

01-03-2012, 08:38 PM - 1 Like	#334
ElJamoquio Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 4,873	Originally posted by rparmar How will the introduction of a new mount automatically destroy all existing cameras and lenses in an old mount? How does it imply that all other development work will cease? I am failing to follow this logic. Sometimes a new mount means the old one dies, sometimes it doesn't. Usually it doesn't, but hell, I'd be pissed if I bought a Canon camera and a few lenses in 1986 or whatever year that was. I have thousands of dollars in the k-mount... I'd be pretty pissed if it was abandoned.

01-03-2012, 10:02 PM - 1 Like	#335
jsherman999 Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,237	Originally posted by rparmar That's not remotely close to true. There has always been a plurality of opinion on what the future will bring, with some imagining things staying much the same, and most imagining immediate doom. I think you're getting your information from the covers of SF mags! (And it still has nothing to do with the current argument.) I was implying that the folks saying 'mirrorless is the wave of the future, give up K-mount asap to get on the wave fully' are possibly being shortsighted. I admit the air-car example is extreme, but the point is valid. Sometimes a trend can never really catch on like people assume it will, doomed from the start by fundamental problems, and sometimes it does catch on but much, much later than predicted because certain dependencies that everyone overlooked weren't in place yet, or certain established advantages to the status quo were discounted too heavily. The last computer mainframe was supposed to be unplugged in 1996, according to Infoworld. And in 1992, Edward Yourdon wrote The Decline and Fall of the American Programmer. Yourdon predicted that within a few years, the computer programming profession in the U.S. would be decimated as most programming jobs would move overseas, where they could be done just as well by much cheaper labor. in 1996, realizing that it hadn't happened yet, he wrote Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer, in which he reversed most of his earlier predictions and gave some 'reasons' why it didn't happen. About five years after that, people started predicting it would actually happen again, and companies began to source out programming tasks, jobs, entire projects overseas, from the US. Now ten years after that, those same companies have pulled a lot of that work back, realizing that some dependencies were not in place, quality and synergy suffered, escalating costs and diminishing the labor savings. They are still outsourcing quite a bit, and this 'total decimation' may still happen, just not as quickly as the CEOs thought 10 years ago, or as Yourdon thought 20 years ago. Sometimes ideas seem so right, so plausible, that we just push the timeline in our minds. That might be happening now, with mirrorless. Quote: Just as well, in that case, that I wrote nothing of the kind. (But I am reminded of why I have unsubscribed to almost everything on this forum. And now one more thread gone.) I didn't mean that to be in any way harsh or disrespectful, Robin, sorry if it came across that way. .

01-04-2012, 05:54 AM	#337
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Well, the Q system can be considered as an advanced step forward, as far as miniaturisation is concerned. With "continuous" progress in sensor IQ in sight. More-over, with only a few new lenses to develop according to its' coherent concept (which is definitely NOT the case of NEX system for example), it should not be that of a burden as far as R&D is concerned...

01-04-2012, 07:16 AM	#338
Clinton Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Salt Lake City, UT Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,910	Here's a truly blasphemous idea for you. If all that is going wrong with the K mount is the registration distance, why not simply reduce the registration distance, call it KAF-4, and make an extension tube with all the contacts for the older lenses. Better yet, have the camera move the sensor when it detects a non-kaf4 mount lens.

01-04-2012, 07:39 AM	#339
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	1. Because they will have to keep: - A-lens compatibility - mechanical aperture lever - in-body AF motor (preferably) 2. Move the sensor... where? The camera won't be any smaller this way, since the sensor would have to move 45mm away from the lens mount. The mechanisms for accurately moving the sensor while keeping the alignment would be expensive, and would also need some extra space.

01-04-2012, 11:02 AM	#340
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Keeping the K mount is fine with me. Just give me newly designed glasses specifically for FF mirrorless. If not, I will buy M9.

01-04-2012, 04:50 PM	#341
Spare Tire Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Montréal Posts: 118	Moving film plane has been done before with the Contax AX. While we're at it, it will give us autofocus on all lenses!

01-04-2012, 05:31 PM	#342
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Spare Tire Moving film plane has been done before with the Contax AX. While we're at it, it will give us autofocus on all lenses! Done with the Mamiya Six series back in the early 50s. Worked very well too.

01-04-2012, 05:39 PM	#343
Quicksand Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Central Ohio (formerly SF Bay Area) Posts: 1,519	Not for me, thanks. I'm afraid moving the sensor back 20mm or so will bonk me on the nose when I least expect it.

01-04-2012, 08:29 PM	#344
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by Quicksand Not for me, thanks. I'm afraid moving the sensor back 20mm or so will bonk me on the nose when I least expect it. There will be a new V-shaped sensor, so the back of the camera can be made to accommodate your schnozz. Which made me think: We have had countless posts over the years from people gushing about the superior ergonomics of their latest Pentax, going on and on about how it fits their hands. Yet we never heard a word about how a camera fits your face. We just take it for granted that a certain amount of awkward face-smashing goes with the territory. Imagine if they made an eyepiece that gives you some nose room. Sort of like the O-ME53 does. Not necessarily magnifying or an optional add-on, but design the camera so there is that extra bit of room at the back. Maybe make it collapse into the body when the camera is off, so there's no obstructing protrusion when stowing the camera in a bag. It would be the kewlest thing since the built-in viewfinder blinds on the ESII.

01-04-2012, 08:56 PM	#345
johnmflores Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Somerville, NJ Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,361	Originally posted by Mike Cash There will be a new V-shaped sensor, so the back of the camera can be made to accommodate your schnozz. Which made me think: We have had countless posts over the years from people gushing about the superior ergonomics of their latest Pentax, going on and on about how it fits their hands. Yet we never heard a word about how a camera fits your face. We just take it for granted that a certain amount of awkward face-smashing goes with the territory. Imagine if they made an eyepiece that gives you some nose room. Sort of like the O-ME53 does. Not necessarily magnifying or an optional add-on, but design the camera so there is that extra bit of room at the back. Maybe make it collapse into the body when the camera is off, so there's no obstructing protrusion when stowing the camera in a bag. It would be the kewlest thing since the built-in viewfinder blinds on the ESII. Panasonic GH2: Kind of makes me wish I had a monster schnoz..